Re: Routers multicast address 224.0.0.2 ?! [7:59609]
You could disable IGMP snooping or CGMP on the switch to check if it is the cause of the problem. There are notes about CGMP and HSRP on: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk363/technologies_tech_note09186a00800b0871.shtml Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59742&t=59609 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: problem with initiating PPTP connection behind a P [7:59654]
Let me see if I got that right; You want to establish a PPTP tunnel to access an internal server from a PC on the Internet. On the PIX, you have just on valid address on the outside interface, so you use PAT for the internal host access the Internet If I got that right, it is what I have implemented. I will wait for your confirmation. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59743&t=59654 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
XSS Vulnerability found on Cisco Website [7:59744]
According to http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/6T00D206AC.html there is a Cross Site Scripting vulnerability on the Cisco website. Make sure you log off of your CCO account (which last time I checked Cisco does not give us that option!) before surfing the web. The only way I have been able to log off is turn off the browser which expires the cookie. Paul Borghese Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59744&t=59744 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Very Strange Problem....Any Ideas? [7:59682]
Since you worked in a brokerage situation, you probably understand better than most... It's straight IP, but there is equipment from Bloomberg, Metavante, Reuters, Pershing, etc. Most of the equipment, I have to take the vendor's word that it's not misbehaving since I don't have access. Supposedly, each vendor checked their equipment and ruled out all the things we asked them to check. At 07:30 AM 12/22/2002 +, you wrote: >Craig, I looked through the other responses, but I wanted to offer >something. I worked in brokerage for a number of years, most of which time I >was in the beginner's level regarding networking. But I do recall some >"strange" things happening, and I never did trust the answers particular >venders were giving me. > >First question - when you say "vendor" Unix boxes, are you talking ILX >systems? IP only box? no port to IPX, I assume. > >Second question - is there a firewall someplace in the mix? > >Third question - any other vendor equipment - say a Bloomberg router or a >Bridge Networks server, or maybe a Telerate or two? > >Any other Thomson equipment in the mix? > >I had a problem once with what ILX told me was a routing loop. I'd have to >sit back and think a long time about the topology I had in place. The >problem only occurred with a particular branch that I was moving from a >bridged to a routed WAN link. > >Another time, when I was testing using centralized ILX services ( servers at >HQ, workstations in remote offices ), ILX used to blame the failure to >operate properly on IP helpering which I had in place for DHCP purposes. >They also used to claim that my RIP passive on my PIX firewall was >interfering with their servers. I can buy the routing loop, but I never did >buy their IP helpering and PIX finger pointing. Again, I'd have to sit back >and think a while. It's been over three years now. > >I asked about other vendors, because you never can tell when a misconfigured >redistribution or some static route from 3rd party equipment might creep >into the mix. > >Let us all know. Especially me. I still have a soft spot in my heart for >brokerage. > >Chuck > >-- >TANSTAAFL >"there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" > > > > >""Craig Columbus"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I worked on a network move for a brokerage company last week and > > encountered a VERY strange problem. > > > > We moved a bunch of equipment to a new office building. During the > > process, we changed the internal network from 192.168.100.0/24 to > > 172.31.4.0/22. > > There company has 4 Cisco 3500XL 48 port switches, with no VLANs and plain > > vanilla configurations. The fanciest thing is portfast on the client > > machine ports. > > Switches are linked via GBICs in a cascade. There is one client >maintained > > router that sits before the firewall with only static routes and no >routing > > protocols. > > There are multiple outside vendor routers for specific applications > > (real-time quotes, clearinghouse mainframe, etc.), but these too also have > > only static routes and no routing protocols. > > > > After installing all of the network equipment and servers, we started to > > turn on clients and get new DHCP addresses. Since the new network was > > 172.31.4.0/22, 172.31.4.1 - 172.31.4.255 was reserved for servers, > > printers, switches, and routers. The remaining 172.31.5.0 - 172.31.7.254 > > was reserved for clients...though there are only about 100 clients at the > > moment and thus they only took 5.0 - 5.100 or so in DHCP. > > > > After installing maybe 20 clients or so, we started to see mass slowdowns > > on the network. Pings between clients and servers were very irregular and > > intermittent. There was no discernable pattern to when pings would >succeed > > and when they'd fail. We exhaustively went through all devices and made > > sure that they'd been correctly set to the new mask and that all server > > functions (DNS, WINS, AD, etc.) had been correctly setup for the new > > subnet. Everything looked fine. In an effort to troubleshoot, we >unhooked > > the switch stack and put core servers and a few clients on a single > > switch. Again, communication was irregular and unpredictable, whether >with > > static or DHCP addresses on the clients. Sometimes things would be fine, > > other times clients could ping the server, but not the switch to which >they > > were attached. Sometimes clients could ping the switch, but not the > > server. Sometimes the clients could ping neither. Again, there seemed to > > be no pattern. Thinking there might have been some IOS bug, we erased > > nvram, upgraded the switches to current IOS code, and put in a completely > > plain configuration. This had no effect on the problem. > > > > After 4 of us (with probably 50 years of industry experience between us) > > spent 15 hours or so trying to resolve the issue, I finally suggested we > > try moving the clients from the 172.31.5.x/22 block to th
RE: problem with initiating PPTP connection behind a P [7:59746]
I already get the answer and it doesnt' work. FYI. The PPTP server is on the Internet. The machine that initiated the PPTP connection sit behind a Pix firewall and access the Internet via PAT. alaerte Vidali wrote:Let me see if I got that right; You want to establish a PPTP tunnel to access an internal server from a PC on the Internet. On the PIX, you have just on valid address on the outside interface, so you use PAT for the internal host access the Internet If I got that right, it is what I have implemented. I will wait for your confirmation. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59746&t=59746 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645]
You gotta have one or the other, It's the brains of the box! Dave Edward Sohn wrote: > thanks. > > it seems that the NSE-1 is made for service providers (according to the > link you sent me). is there a way to determine if i need one? or even > an NPE, for that matter? > > thanks, > > ed David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston Churchill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59747&t=59645 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
strange behavior in ip negotiated [7:59748]
HI All I have the test setup for E1 connection. I am using NM-2CE1B in 3660 routers. I have connected two routers back to back for this E1 connection. The problem is when i configure the static ip address, i can ping the opposite end. But when i give ip address negotiated, it can not ping to the other end. The ip address is negotiated and assigned. It can ping to its own ip address, but not to the opposite end. When i give trace route to its own ip address, it traces to the opposite end and ends in the own ip address. when i give debug ip packets it gives unroutable. but in traceroute it can reach the opposite end. please can anyone guide me where i am going wrong. I am attaching the configuration of the two routers. R1E1 back to backR2 R1#sh run Building configuration... Current configuration : 1082 bytes ! version 12.2 service timestamps debug uptime service timestamps log uptime no service password-encryption ! hostname R1 ! enable password lab ! ip subnet-zero ! ! ip name-server 192.122.173.131 ! frame-relay switching ! controller E1 1/0 shutdown ! controller E1 1/1 shutdown ! controller E1 3/0 channel-group 0 timeslots 1-31 ! ! ! interface FastEthernet0/0 ip address 10.77.152.220 255.255.255.0 ip nat outside duplex auto speed auto no cdp enable ! interface FastEthernet1/0 no ip address shutdown duplex auto speed auto ! interface FastEthernet3/0 no ip address shutdown duplex auto speed auto ! interface Serial3/0:0 ip address 100.100.100.1 255.255.255.0 ip nat inside encapsulation ppp peer default ip address pool deepak ! ip local pool deepak 100.100.100.11 100.100.100.20 ip nat inside source list 101 interface FastEthernet0/0 overload ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.77.152.129 ip http server ip pim bidir-enable ! access-list 101 permit ip 100.100.100.0 0.0.0.255 any ! line con 0 line aux 0 line vty 0 4 password lab login ! end R1#ping 100.100.100.11 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 100.100.100.11, timeout is 2 seconds: . Success rate is 0 percent (0/5) R2#sh run Building configuration... Current configuration : 1024 bytes ! version 12.2 service timestamps debug uptime service timestamps log uptime no service password-encryption ! hostname R2 ! enable password lab ! ip subnet-zero ! ! ip name-server 192.122.173.131 ! ! controller E1 3/0 channel-group 0 timeslots 1-31 ! controller E1 3/1 ! ! ! interface FastEthernet0/0 ip address 10.77.152.221 255.255.255.0 shutdown duplex auto speed auto no cdp enable ! interface FastEthernet0/1 no ip address shutdown duplex auto speed auto no cdp enable ! interface FastEthernet1/0 no ip address shutdown duplex auto speed auto no cdp enable ! interface Serial1/0 no ip address shutdown no fair-queue no cdp enable ! interface FastEthernet3/0 no ip address shutdown duplex auto speed auto no cdp enable ! interface Serial3/0:0 ip address negotiated encapsulation ppp no peer neighbor-route no cdp enable ! ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 100.100.100.1 ip http server ip pim bidir-enable ! no cdp run ! line con 0 line aux 0 line vty 0 4 password lab login ! end R1#ping 100.100.100.11 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 100.100.100.11, timeout is 2 seconds: ! Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/3/4 ms R1#traceroute 100.100.100.11 Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to 100.100.100.11 1 100.100.100.1 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 100.100.100.11 4 msec 0 msec * R1#ping 100.100.100.1 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 100.100.100.1, timeout is 2 seconds: . Success rate is 0 percent (0/5) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59748&t=59748 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ISIS [7:59749]
Hi all, our company will implement IS-IS very shortly. Does anyone have sample config / any web site it can have clearly teaching me? Thx! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59749&t=59749 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is there anyone just passed new CCNA exam ? [7:59636]
IPX is still there Passing score is still 849 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59750&t=59636 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ISIS [7:59749]
""Cliff Cliff"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi all, > > our company will implement IS-IS very shortly. Does anyone have sample > config / any web site it can have clearly teaching me? Thx! idle curousity - your company has made a decision to implement IS-IS and there is no one on staff who knows anything about the protocol? I have to ask. Why? Why IS-IS. Why the decision? Greenfield or replacing something else? As for sources, Pete Van Oene's white papers on Cert Zone are pretty good. I thought that Jeff Doyle's treatment of IS-IS was lacking, but it's been a while, and that may have been my own ignorance. There is always CCO http://us.imdb.com/Title?0055719 and http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/ip_r /iprprt2/1rdisis.htm watch the wrap if you have a couple of spare routers, you can follow some of the examples to get started. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59751&t=59749 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ISIS [7:59749]
The Cisco Press web site has a downloadable chapter on ISIS - well over 100 pages. Here's a good start on CCO: Watch the wrap on these. www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk472/tk474/tk381/tech_protocol_home.html A short overview on CCO reachable from the above URL. www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk472/tk474/technologies_white_paper09186a00800a3e6 f.shtml > -Original Message- > From: Cliff Cliff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 9:44 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: ISIS [7:59749] > > > Hi all, > > our company will implement IS-IS very shortly. Does anyone have sample > config / any web site it can have clearly teaching me? Thx! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59752&t=59749 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HSRP and BGP [7:59735]
In your scenario advertising same block over both links to your provider will not help in load sharing. Redundancy is acheived but not sharing because your ISP will receive two advertisments to the same block and BGP only chooses the best route. You can overcome this in many ways, for example you if you have a /22 block. Devide it into 8 /24 blocks. Start advertising 4 /24s through the 1st router, advertise the remaining /24s through the 2nd router. Like this you acheived load-balance as your ISP will receive 1/2 of the routes via one link and the rest through the other. You are not done yet as this will provide load-sharing but not redundancy. For example if Link1 fails this means that 1/2 of your blocks will not be advertised and will stop receiving traffic for them. To avoid this, advertise through both routers an aggregate route for the whole /22. Like this your ISP will always use the more specific route and in a way balance the traffic over both links. When one of the links/routers fail, your ISP will use the aggregate route advertised from your other router to route all the traffic back to you. Another way, is to ask your provider to accept not just 1 route for the /24 but accept both by setting the maximum accepted routes to 2 instead to 1. 1 is the default and ISPs normally don't accept changing this default value. HTH, Yasser >From: "Ivan Yip" >Hi All, > >Thanks all your response. > >Now two routers adverise same block /24 to the isp. I found that they are >'load shared' in this sense. Only 1 link is the active for Inbound. For >example, if I download files from outside, inbound is using say link1 and >link2 is idle and no packet coming in. Some time later, I ftp again and this >time is using link2 and link1 is idle. > >Is it normal? > >TIA. misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Protect your PC - Click here for McAfee.com VirusScan Online Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59753&t=59735 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New to vlans...HELP [7:59655]
Cisco Newbie wrote: > > Thanks for your reply. Can you or someone please give me an > example of what the following would look like configured on the > switch? > 1. The server port be a member of 2 vlans > 2. The same server port configured for tagging > 3. The 2 DSLAM ethernet ports (UPLINK and MNGT) be configured > as an untagged member of the vlan > Thanks. > Dave > Dave, What type of switch? Have you searched on CCO? They almost always have an example config to meet your needs. The answer to 1 & 2 above is the same. The general form for a non-tagged access port is: set vlan 1 1/1 set vlan 2 1/2 This assigns port 1/1 to vlan 1 and port 1/2 to vlan 2 The general form for a tagged trunk would be: set trunk 2/1 on dot1q 1-2 clear trunk 2/1 3-1005 This sets port 2/1 as a dot1q trunk carrying vlans 1 & 2. All others are cleared. But depending on the switch, this may not be any good. Scott Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59754&t=59655 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:59481]
Interesting question, but I think the question of "which is tougher" and "which is more valuable" get confused. As someone who has an MBA from a top school, I know that it took several thousand of hours of work and an estimated 12,000 - 15,000 pages of reading. I am in process on my CCIE, but so far it looks like it will only be a fraction of that. However, how hard it is really doesn't matter. The question is what you want to do with your life and what you find interesting. Would being an successful investment banker pay more than being a solid CCIE? Of course. Would I hate my life? Of course. But, that is just my personal view. As someone who has had a wide range of technical, managerial, and financial experiences I strongly encourage people to follow their passion and not get hung-up in the money question. And don't worry about how hard it is or isn't. If you love it you will work through it. If you hate it but are trying to just make a bunch of money, it may be harder for you that becoming a brain surgeon. Just my $1.25 worth . . . inflation you know! ""Mic shoeps"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hello > > I've been arguing with a collegue of mine which one would be tougher to > achieve. I told him that it would be much more harder to have a computer > science or a networking degree (you have to take the GRE and complete 2 or 3 > years of school works) than a CCIE, but my collegue think other wise. He > literally believes that having a CCIE is equivalent of having a Ph.d in > Networking. I'd like to hear your thought. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59755&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645]
dave, that's the thing...i actually heard (from a cisco SE) that i am not required to have one. they just offload the processing. can someone verify for me, please? thanks, eddie -Original Message- From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 7:07 AM To: Edward Sohn Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] You gotta have one or the other, It's the brains of the box! Dave Edward Sohn wrote: > thanks. > > it seems that the NSE-1 is made for service providers (according to > the link you sent me). is there a way to determine if i need one? or > even an NPE, for that matter? > > thanks, > > ed David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston Churchill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59757&t=59645 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645]
That is capital BS!!! Offload the processing from what!?!?! Trust me you need one. With the new NPE-1G you no longer need and I/O card if that's what the person is thinking of... Now who do you believe :) Dave Edward Sohn wrote: > dave, > > that's the thing...i actually heard (from a cisco SE) that i am not > required to have one. they just offload the processing. > > can someone verify for me, please? > > thanks, > > eddie > > -Original Message- > From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 7:07 AM > To: Edward Sohn > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] > > > >You gotta have one or the other, It's the brains of the box! > >Dave > > Edward Sohn wrote: > >>thanks. >> >>it seems that the NSE-1 is made for service providers (according to >>the link you sent me). is there a way to determine if i need one? or > > >>even an NPE, for that matter? >> >>thanks, >> >>ed > > > David Madland > CCIE# 2016 > Sr. Network Engineer > Qwest Communications > 612-664-3367 > > "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston > Churchill > > > > > -- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston Churchill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59758&t=59645 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HSRP and BGP [7:59735]
While several of us have mentioned splitting up the netblocks that you advertise to your ISP would help spread the usage across the T1's there is something to keep in mind. If there is only 1 or so hosts that are most often the destination for traffic inbound to your site, you are still going to get more utilization across the link that advertises the network that contains that particular host/s. I mention this because I've had clients in the past split netblock assignments in an effort to get better utilization of their multiple T1 setups. But we've often found that they have 1 host providing more service than the others, that particular network will see more traffic, hence, that particular link seeing more utilization. There can be a need to be very granular about how you advertise networks and about how you have your network set up. You may have to play with moving hosts around on different netblocks if you are truly looking to get something near even traffic on each T1. You can use your interface stats to routinely check load, or better, use something like MRTG that will poll your interfaces and graph utilization over longer periods of time. Sorry if this is long winded, but you need to keep in mind what your trying to do. How to best use the resources you have and perhaps most importantly, to know how to measure it accurately to see if you've achieved the results you were looking for. -chris - Original Message - From: "YASSER ALY" To: Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 11:43 AM Subject: Re: HSRP and BGP [7:59735] > In your scenario advertising same block over both links to your provider > will not help in load sharing. Redundancy is acheived but not sharing > because your ISP will receive two advertisments to the same block and BGP > only chooses the best route. > > You can overcome this in many ways, for example you if you have a /22 > block. Devide it into 8 /24 blocks. Start advertising 4 /24s through the > 1st router, advertise the remaining /24s through the 2nd router. Like > this you acheived load-balance as your ISP will receive 1/2 of the routes > via one link and the rest through the other. > > You are not done yet as this will provide load-sharing but not > redundancy. For example if Link1 fails this means that 1/2 of your blocks > will not be advertised and will stop receiving traffic for them. To avoid > this, advertise through both routers an aggregate route for the whole > /22. Like this your ISP will always use the more specific route and in a > way balance the traffic over both links. When one of the links/routers > fail, your ISP will use the aggregate route advertised from your other > router to route all the traffic back to you. > > Another way, is to ask your provider to accept not just 1 route for the > /24 but accept both by setting the maximum accepted routes to 2 instead > to 1. 1 is the default and ISPs normally don't accept changing this > default value. > > HTH, > > Yasser > > >From: "Ivan Yip" >Hi All, > >Thanks all your response. > >Now two > routers adverise same block /24 to the isp. I found that they are >'load > shared' in this sense. Only 1 link is the active for Inbound. For > >example, if I download files from outside, inbound is using say link1 > and >link2 is idle and no packet coming in. Some time later, I ftp again > and this >time is using link2 and link1 is idle. > >Is it normal? > >TIA. > misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Protect your PC - Click here for McAfee.com VirusScan Online Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59759&t=59735 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645]
so maybe that's what he was referring to...can i just use a I/O card for a basis, if i needed to (not that i would, but just wondering if i could)... -Original Message- From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 9:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] That is capital BS!!! Offload the processing from what!?!?! Trust me you need one. With the new NPE-1G you no longer need and I/O card if that's what the person is thinking of... Now who do you believe :) Dave Edward Sohn wrote: > dave, > > that's the thing...i actually heard (from a cisco SE) that i am not > required to have one. they just offload the processing. > > can someone verify for me, please? > > thanks, > > eddie > > -Original Message- > From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 7:07 AM > To: Edward Sohn > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] > > > >You gotta have one or the other, It's the brains of the box! > >Dave > > Edward Sohn wrote: > >>thanks. >> >>it seems that the NSE-1 is made for service providers (according to >>the link you sent me). is there a way to determine if i need one? or > > >>even an NPE, for that matter? >> >>thanks, >> >>ed > > > David Madland > CCIE# 2016 > Sr. Network Engineer > Qwest Communications > 612-664-3367 > > "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston > Churchill > > > > > -- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston Churchill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59760&t=59645 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ISIS [7:59749]
Cisco Press is providing some free chapters on IS-IS. This is a terrific
Christmas present from one of the best publishers out there. I'm partially
just adding filler here, because URLs at the top of GroupStudy lists go into
a black hole, although I truly do admire Cisco Press. ;-)
And, finally, here's the URL:
http://www.ciscopress.com/catalog/ccnp.asp?session_id={205F4396-722B-4CBE-8F36-EE4462BFAE91}#BSCN
Priscilla
Cliff Cliff wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> our company will implement IS-IS very shortly. Does anyone have
> sample config / any web site it can have clearly teaching me?
> Thx!
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59761&t=59749
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5300 IVR with loopback [7:59762]
Hi, folks: I new to 5300, and have question regarding the IVR for 5300. someone suggest me such configuration: t1 (phone company, incoming call) multpiple 5300 ( without IVR, say 5300a )loopback5300 ( with IVR, say 6300b) when a phone call come into 5300a, the 5300a has not ivr so loopback to 5300b to get the irv announcement to the caller. 5300b can keep 711 code ivr, and this ivr is only used for authetication, the 5300a can use 729 code for real time vocie. Is this possible? how to config the loopback? thanks. min = Min Wang Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59762&t=59762 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Very Strange Problem....Any Ideas? [7:59682]
You should probably look into the behavior of those UNIX servers that insist on using a /24 mask. Is it possible that they also advertise such a mask with ICMP? See RFC 1256 for more info about ICMP router solicitations and advertisements. I think I have seen Windows and Macintosh machines broadcast ICMP router solicitation messages. Usually they are ignored, but perhaps not in your case. The UNIX machines may have responded with the wrong mask. Routers (and hosts that do routing) also periodically broadcast or multicast router advertisements, which can wreak havoc even if the other hosts don't ask for the info. You said you checked the mask on all your devices, though... But perhaps the problem was intermittent, due to the intermitten nature of ICMP router advertisements. Another thought is that there could have been a rogue DHCP server somewhere. These days DHCP server capability is showing up in all sorts of devices, particularly wireless access points, but also other Internet toasters, refigerators, etc. ;-) Anyway, I guess you already know that you'll want to put a sniffer on this network and figure out what is really going on before you go back to the addressing that should, of course, work. Priscilla Craig Columbus wrote: > > I worked on a network move for a brokerage company last week > and > encountered a VERY strange problem. > > We moved a bunch of equipment to a new office building. During > the > process, we changed the internal network from 192.168.100.0/24 > to > 172.31.4.0/22. > There company has 4 Cisco 3500XL 48 port switches, with no > VLANs and plain > vanilla configurations. The fanciest thing is portfast on the > client > machine ports. > Switches are linked via GBICs in a cascade. There is one > client maintained > router that sits before the firewall with only static routes > and no routing > protocols. > There are multiple outside vendor routers for specific > applications > (real-time quotes, clearinghouse mainframe, etc.), but these > too also have > only static routes and no routing protocols. > > After installing all of the network equipment and servers, we > started to > turn on clients and get new DHCP addresses. Since the new > network was > 172.31.4.0/22, 172.31.4.1 - 172.31.4.255 was reserved for > servers, > printers, switches, and routers. The remaining 172.31.5.0 - > 172.31.7.254 > was reserved for clients...though there are only about 100 > clients at the > moment and thus they only took 5.0 - 5.100 or so in DHCP. > > After installing maybe 20 clients or so, we started to see mass > slowdowns > on the network. Pings between clients and servers were very > irregular and > intermittent. There was no discernable pattern to when pings > would succeed > and when they'd fail. We exhaustively went through all devices > and made > sure that they'd been correctly set to the new mask and that > all server > functions (DNS, WINS, AD, etc.) had been correctly setup for > the new > subnet. Everything looked fine. In an effort to troubleshoot, > we unhooked > the switch stack and put core servers and a few clients on a > single > switch. Again, communication was irregular and unpredictable, > whether with > static or DHCP addresses on the clients. Sometimes things > would be fine, > other times clients could ping the server, but not the switch > to which they > were attached. Sometimes clients could ping the switch, but > not the > server. Sometimes the clients could ping neither. Again, > there seemed to > be no pattern. Thinking there might have been some IOS bug, we > erased > nvram, upgraded the switches to current IOS code, and put in a > completely > plain configuration. This had no effect on the problem. > > After 4 of us (with probably 50 years of industry experience > between us) > spent 15 hours or so trying to resolve the issue, I finally > suggested we > try moving the clients from the 172.31.5.x/22 block to the > 172.31.4.x/22 > block. This solved all problems, and all clients were able to > ping both > switches and servers 100% of the time. Again, we didn't change > the mask on > anything, only the third octet of the client ip range. We then > went back > and triple checked every device attached to the > networkservers, > routers, switches, printers, clients, etc. Every single device > had the > correct mask (/22) except for two vendor maintained UNIX > boxes...they had > 172.31.4.x/24. We suspected as much earlier since clients > couldn't > communicate with the UNIX boxes from the beginning, but the > other servers > could communicate with the UNIX boxes without issue. These > UNIX servers > weren't running RIP(or any other RP)...and besides, there > aren't any other > network devices listening for RIPso we weren't really > concerned about > them causing the network connectivity issues. At the time, I > couldn't see > how a bad mask on these boxes could effectively make the whole > network > unusable, so I didn't bother corr
Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645]
No. With the NPE-1G being the exception you need an I/O card which is on the same side of the router as the PA's, and a NPE or NSE card which is on the otherside. The I/O cards contains you NVRAM, flash, console connection and various LAN interfaces. The NPE or NSE contains the CPU and DRAM. Dave Edward Sohn wrote: > so maybe that's what he was referring to...can i just use a I/O card for > a basis, if i needed to (not that i would, but just wondering if i > could)... > > -Original Message- > From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 9:31 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] > > > >That is capital BS!!! Offload the processing from what!?!?! > >Trust me you need one. > >With the new NPE-1G you no longer need and I/O card if that's what > the person is thinking of... > >Now who do you believe :) > >Dave > > Edward Sohn wrote: > >>dave, >> >>that's the thing...i actually heard (from a cisco SE) that i am not >>required to have one. they just offload the processing. >> >>can someone verify for me, please? >> >>thanks, >> >>eddie >> >>-Original Message- >>From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 7:07 AM >>To: Edward Sohn >>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] >> >> >> >> You gotta have one or the other, It's the brains of the box! >> >> Dave >> >>Edward Sohn wrote: >> >> >>>thanks. >>> >>>it seems that the NSE-1 is made for service providers (according to >>>the link you sent me). is there a way to determine if i need one? or >> >> >>>even an NPE, for that matter? >>> >>>thanks, >>> >>>ed >> >> >>David Madland >>CCIE# 2016 >>Sr. Network Engineer >>Qwest Communications >>612-664-3367 >> >>"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston >>Churchill >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston Churchill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59764&t=59645 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wireless firmware 10.10T - wassup? [7:59765]
Is there something special about versions of firmware later then 10.10T for Cisco Wireless Access Points? They emphasis it, but I can't seem to figure out why... Any thoughts? - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59765&t=59765 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question regarding performance and Route-Maps [7:59766]
Fellow Ciscoers, Anyone have any idea on the performance hit for a cisco 3660 using route-maps instead of routing using static routes? I have 200+ routes that I would like to compile into one route-map with 3 match statements instead. Is there an equation that would tell me how much slower (pps) my data will route when using a route-map instead of static routes. Does such an equation exist? Mahalo, Daren Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59766&t=59766 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645]
dave, you seem one of the more knowledgeable people on this list regarding the 7200 series...lemme ask you a question... do you know how i can quantifiably justify going with one NPE/NSE over another? like specific performance requirements for each? thanks, ed -Original Message- From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 10:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] No. With the NPE-1G being the exception you need an I/O card which is on the same side of the router as the PA's, and a NPE or NSE card which is on the otherside. The I/O cards contains you NVRAM, flash, console connection and various LAN interfaces. The NPE or NSE contains the CPU and DRAM. Dave Edward Sohn wrote: > so maybe that's what he was referring to...can i just use a I/O card > for a basis, if i needed to (not that i would, but just wondering if i > could)... > > -Original Message- > From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 9:31 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] > > > >That is capital BS!!! Offload the processing from what!?!?! > >Trust me you need one. > >With the new NPE-1G you no longer need and I/O card if that's what > the person is thinking of... > >Now who do you believe :) > >Dave > > Edward Sohn wrote: > >>dave, >> >>that's the thing...i actually heard (from a cisco SE) that i am not >>required to have one. they just offload the processing. >> >>can someone verify for me, please? >> >>thanks, >> >>eddie >> >>-Original Message- >>From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 7:07 AM >>To: Edward Sohn >>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] >> >> >> >> You gotta have one or the other, It's the brains of the box! >> >> Dave >> >>Edward Sohn wrote: >> >> >>>thanks. >>> >>>it seems that the NSE-1 is made for service providers (according to >>>the link you sent me). is there a way to determine if i need one? >>>or >> >> >>>even an NPE, for that matter? >>> >>>thanks, >>> >>>ed >> >> >>David Madland >>CCIE# 2016 >>Sr. Network Engineer >>Qwest Communications >>612-664-3367 >> >>"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston >>Churchill >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston Churchill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59767&t=59645 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Looking for cheap gear... [7:59768]
I am looking for gear. I know you guys have many links etc. to sites mentioned here in the past. I was wondering if any of you folks can reply with such links. I am looking for sites with surplus Cisco gear, clearing houses or auctions sites with equipment from failed companies really cheap. I am looking for deals on larger stuff like 7500, ONS, DWD gear etc Any links would be helpful Thanks and have a great and safe holiday season Happy Holidays and lets hope 2003 is a better year all around for us... /JS Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59768&t=59768 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for cheap gear... [7:59768]
the isp-equipment list is great, http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-equipment/ Bri On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, jeff sicuranza wrote: > I am looking for gear. I know you guys have many links etc. to sites > mentioned here in the past. I was wondering if any of you folks can reply > with such links. I am looking for sites with surplus Cisco gear, clearing > houses or auctions sites with equipment from failed companies really cheap. > I am looking for deals on larger stuff like 7500, ONS, DWD gear etc Any > links would be helpful > > Thanks and have a great and safe holiday season > > Happy Holidays and lets hope 2003 is a better year all around for us... > > /JS Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59769&t=59768 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for cheap gear... [7:59768]
""jeff sicuranza"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I am looking for gear. I know you guys have many links etc. to sites > mentioned here in the past. I was wondering if any of you folks can reply > with such links. I am looking for sites with surplus Cisco gear, clearing > houses or auctions sites with equipment from failed companies really cheap. > I am looking for deals on larger stuff like 7500, ONS, DWD gear etc. Any > links would be helpful. http://www.eio.com/onauctns.htm ( lists a number of auction houses, including what used to be Dove ) and there is always e..b...a..y be warned though - things tend not to go for as cheap as you might think. there are a lot of people out there trying to buy used equipment, and there is a particular dynamic with regards to the economics of this. HTH > > Thanks and have a great and safe holiday season. > > Happy Holidays and lets hope 2003 is a better year all around for us... > > /JS Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59770&t=59768 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Looking for cheap gear... [7:59768]
Thanks Brian, I will look into.. Happy Holidays... /JS -Original Message- From: Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 4:02 PM To: jeff sicuranza Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Looking for cheap gear... [7:59768] the isp-equipment list is great, http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-equipment/ Bri On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, jeff sicuranza wrote: > I am looking for gear. I know you guys have many links etc. to sites > mentioned here in the past. I was wondering if any of you folks can reply > with such links. I am looking for sites with surplus Cisco gear, clearing > houses or auctions sites with equipment from failed companies really cheap. > I am looking for deals on larger stuff like 7500, ONS, DWD gear etc Any > links would be helpful > > Thanks and have a great and safe holiday season > > Happy Holidays and lets hope 2003 is a better year all around for us... > > /JS Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59771&t=59768 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding performance and Route-Maps [7:59766]
I don't think you'll find such a table but policy routing is fast switched and unless your talking OC3 speeds you probably have nothing to worry about. Dave Daren Presbitero wrote: > Fellow Ciscoers, > > Anyone have any idea on the performance hit for a cisco 3660 using > route-maps instead of routing using static routes? I have 200+ routes that > I would like to compile into one route-map with 3 match statements instead. > Is there an equation that would tell me how much slower (pps) my data will > route when using a route-map instead of static routes. Does such an > equation exist? > > Mahalo, > Daren -- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston Churchill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59772&t=59766 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645]
If your buying a VXR which you most likely are since I think the non-VXR platform is EOL, you will want a NPE300 at a minimum to get the VXR 900M backplane as opposed to 600M. The bottom line is what need are you trying to fulfill?? A 7200 may well be more than you need, how bout the 3745?... Dave Edward Sohn wrote: > dave, > > you seem one of the more knowledgeable people on this list regarding the > 7200 series...lemme ask you a question... > > do you know how i can quantifiably justify going with one NPE/NSE over > another? like specific performance requirements for each? > > thanks, > > ed > > -Original Message- > From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 10:45 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] > > > > >No. With the NPE-1G being the exception you need an I/O card which is > > on the same side of the router as the PA's, and a NPE or NSE card which > is on the otherside. The I/O cards contains you NVRAM, flash, console > connection and various LAN interfaces. The NPE or NSE contains the CPU > and DRAM. > >Dave > > Edward Sohn wrote: > >>so maybe that's what he was referring to...can i just use a I/O card >>for a basis, if i needed to (not that i would, but just wondering if i > > >>could)... >> >>-Original Message- >>From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 9:31 AM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] >> >> >> >> That is capital BS!!! Offload the processing from what!?!?! >> >> Trust me you need one. >> >> With the new NPE-1G you no longer need and I/O card if that's what >>the person is thinking of... >> >> Now who do you believe :) >> >> Dave >> >>Edward Sohn wrote: >> >> >>>dave, >>> >>>that's the thing...i actually heard (from a cisco SE) that i am not >>>required to have one. they just offload the processing. >>> >>>can someone verify for me, please? >>> >>>thanks, >>> >>>eddie >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>>Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 7:07 AM >>>To: Edward Sohn >>>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Subject: Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] >>> >>> >>> >>> You gotta have one or the other, It's the brains of the box! >>> >>> Dave >>> >>>Edward Sohn wrote: >>> >>> >>> thanks. it seems that the NSE-1 is made for service providers (according to the link you sent me). is there a way to determine if i need one? or >>> >>> even an NPE, for that matter? thanks, ed >>> >>> >>>David Madland >>>CCIE# 2016 >>>Sr. Network Engineer >>>Qwest Communications >>>612-664-3367 >>> >>>"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston >>>Churchill >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston Churchill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59773&t=59645 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Len Lee/CHI/NTRS is out of the office. [7:59774]
I will be out of the office starting December 23, 2002 and will not return until December 31, 2002. I will respond to your message when I return. If this is an emergency, Please contact Bill Jarrett at extention. 312-557-0390 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59774&t=59774 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Very Strange Problem....Any Ideas? [7:59682]
Another thing you may want to do is have MRTG poll the switch and/or routers. This way you may be able to notice if one of the one of the servers or netowrk devices is sending out unexpected large amounts of data. ""Craig Columbus"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I worked on a network move for a brokerage company last week and > encountered a VERY strange problem. > > We moved a bunch of equipment to a new office building. During the > process, we changed the internal network from 192.168.100.0/24 to > 172.31.4.0/22. > There company has 4 Cisco 3500XL 48 port switches, with no VLANs and plain > vanilla configurations. The fanciest thing is portfast on the client > machine ports. > Switches are linked via GBICs in a cascade. There is one client maintained > router that sits before the firewall with only static routes and no routing > protocols. > There are multiple outside vendor routers for specific applications > (real-time quotes, clearinghouse mainframe, etc.), but these too also have > only static routes and no routing protocols. > > After installing all of the network equipment and servers, we started to > turn on clients and get new DHCP addresses. Since the new network was > 172.31.4.0/22, 172.31.4.1 - 172.31.4.255 was reserved for servers, > printers, switches, and routers. The remaining 172.31.5.0 - 172.31.7.254 > was reserved for clients...though there are only about 100 clients at the > moment and thus they only took 5.0 - 5.100 or so in DHCP. > > After installing maybe 20 clients or so, we started to see mass slowdowns > on the network. Pings between clients and servers were very irregular and > intermittent. There was no discernable pattern to when pings would succeed > and when they'd fail. We exhaustively went through all devices and made > sure that they'd been correctly set to the new mask and that all server > functions (DNS, WINS, AD, etc.) had been correctly setup for the new > subnet. Everything looked fine. In an effort to troubleshoot, we unhooked > the switch stack and put core servers and a few clients on a single > switch. Again, communication was irregular and unpredictable, whether with > static or DHCP addresses on the clients. Sometimes things would be fine, > other times clients could ping the server, but not the switch to which they > were attached. Sometimes clients could ping the switch, but not the > server. Sometimes the clients could ping neither. Again, there seemed to > be no pattern. Thinking there might have been some IOS bug, we erased > nvram, upgraded the switches to current IOS code, and put in a completely > plain configuration. This had no effect on the problem. > > After 4 of us (with probably 50 years of industry experience between us) > spent 15 hours or so trying to resolve the issue, I finally suggested we > try moving the clients from the 172.31.5.x/22 block to the 172.31.4.x/22 > block. This solved all problems, and all clients were able to ping both > switches and servers 100% of the time. Again, we didn't change the mask on > anything, only the third octet of the client ip range. We then went back > and triple checked every device attached to the networkservers, > routers, switches, printers, clients, etc. Every single device had the > correct mask (/22) except for two vendor maintained UNIX boxes...they had > 172.31.4.x/24. We suspected as much earlier since clients couldn't > communicate with the UNIX boxes from the beginning, but the other servers > could communicate with the UNIX boxes without issue. These UNIX servers > weren't running RIP(or any other RP)...and besides, there aren't any other > network devices listening for RIPso we weren't really concerned about > them causing the network connectivity issues. At the time, I couldn't see > how a bad mask on these boxes could effectively make the whole network > unusable, so I didn't bother correcting it early in the day. > > At this point, I've had a week to think about the issue and I still don't > have a logical reason for why this problem might have occurred. Anyone out > there have any thoughts? > I'm going back to put in a 3550EMI as the core in a couple of weeks. At > that point, we're going to investigate more and try to move the clients > back to the 172.31.5.x range. I'd like to test theories at that time if > anyone can put one forward that we didn't already testas I said, we > spent a lot of time on this and I didn't put every test we did in this > email. All I can offer is that it wasn't IOS code (we tried more than one > version), it wasn't the switches (we tried several, including non-Cisco), > it wasn't DNS, WINS, DHCP, or any other server side issue (we thoroughly > examined and ruled those out...beside, this was even happening at the IP > level between switches). Everything had worked correctly at the old > building...the only two things that changed significantly during the move > were the IP range and
ADSL problem [7:59776]
I have got three sites. Scenario Explanation : SIte A has a 1721 router with a ADSL connection. It has a ATM module and a ethernet 10/100 port. Ethernet port is connected to the LAN. SIte B and SIte c has 801 routers with a ISDN module and LAN module. Onthe ISDN DSL is configured. VPN connection is used to transfer data across. Problem: >From site B there is excellent ping of less than 112ms to the site A. Now when a computer in site B tries to establish VPN connectivity to a server in Site A it takes more than 5 minutes to come up. the config is checked and its fine in both the routers. can someody tell me the problem. thnz nerdv Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59776&t=59776 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: HSRP and BGP [7:59735]
Dear All, Thanks all useful information. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!! rgds, ivan Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59777&t=59735 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645]
I like looking at http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/core/7206/port_adp/config/3471in.htm#xtocid14 for bw used and point assignment for various port adapters. Another important thing to note is different selections give different pps limits, for example, for the npe models, the model represents how many kpps theyll transfer. Bri On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Edward Sohn wrote: > dave, > > you seem one of the more knowledgeable people on this list regarding the > 7200 series...lemme ask you a question... > > do you know how i can quantifiably justify going with one NPE/NSE over > another? like specific performance requirements for each? > > thanks, > > ed > > -Original Message- > From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 10:45 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] > > > > >No. With the NPE-1G being the exception you need an I/O card which is > > on the same side of the router as the PA's, and a NPE or NSE card which > is on the otherside. The I/O cards contains you NVRAM, flash, console > connection and various LAN interfaces. The NPE or NSE contains the CPU > and DRAM. > >Dave > > Edward Sohn wrote: > > so maybe that's what he was referring to...can i just use a I/O card > > for a basis, if i needed to (not that i would, but just wondering if i > > > could)... > > > > -Original Message- > > From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 9:31 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] > > > > > > > >That is capital BS!!! Offload the processing from what!?!?! > > > >Trust me you need one. > > > >With the new NPE-1G you no longer need and I/O card if that's what > > the person is thinking of... > > > >Now who do you believe :) > > > >Dave > > > > Edward Sohn wrote: > > > >>dave, > >> > >>that's the thing...i actually heard (from a cisco SE) that i am not > >>required to have one. they just offload the processing. > >> > >>can someone verify for me, please? > >> > >>thanks, > >> > >>eddie > >> > >>-Original Message- > >>From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >>Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 7:07 AM > >>To: Edward Sohn > >>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] > >> > >> > >> > >> You gotta have one or the other, It's the brains of the box! > >> > >> Dave > >> > >>Edward Sohn wrote: > >> > >> > >>>thanks. > >>> > >>>it seems that the NSE-1 is made for service providers (according to > >>>the link you sent me). is there a way to determine if i need one? > >>>or > >> > >> > >>>even an NPE, for that matter? > >>> > >>>thanks, > >>> > >>>ed > >> > >> > >>David Madland > >>CCIE# 2016 > >>Sr. Network Engineer > >>Qwest Communications > >>612-664-3367 > >> > >>"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston > >>Churchill > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > David Madland > CCIE# 2016 > Sr. Network Engineer > Qwest Communications > 612-664-3367 > > "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston > Churchill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59778&t=59645 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:59481]
""Pcasey"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Interesting question, but I think the question of "which is tougher" and > "which is more valuable" get confused. > > As someone who has an MBA from a top school, I know that it took several > thousand of hours of work and an estimated 12,000 - 15,000 pages of reading. > I am in process on my CCIE, but so far it looks like it will only be a > fraction of that. I would add that people who are looking at only the work involved in getting a top-flight MBA don't see the whole picture. Not only do you need to figure in the work needed to obtain the MBA, you also have to figure in the work involved in getting admitted to a top program in the first place. For example, let's say you want to get an MBA from Harvard/Stanford/Penn/N'Western/whatever. Well, you can't just show up to class one day and demand that they start teaching you. You first have to be admitted - and let's face it, getting admitted to places of that caliber requires you to have done a whole lot of stuff beforehand. They ain't gonna admit just anybody. Therefore when you add in the work involved in simply getting admitted in the first place, in addition to the work involved in getting the degree, I think it's plain to see that the degree from a top school is many times more difficult than the CCIE could ever be. > > However, how hard it is really doesn't matter. The question is what you > want to do with your life and what you find interesting. Would being an > successful investment banker pay more than being a solid CCIE? Of course. > Would I hate my life? Of course. But, that is just my personal view. This is absolutely true, but I would also add the following. What makes you happy now may not make you happy in the future. Sure, you might like to be the network guy configuring boxes now, but there's no guarantee that this will still be true 20 years later. Maybe you'll still like it, but on the other hand, maybe you want to be the one in the nice office telling other people to configure boxes. Degrees are valuable because of their flexibility. If you want to make a change in your career path in the future, it is far easier to do so with a degree than with a cert. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59779&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645]
In order to hit performance marks that are excellent with IPSec you will need not only a spiffy NPE but the PA-VAM or PA-ISA. Be aware that the PA-VAM may not work with the latest and greatest IPSec image. I picked up a 7206VXR VPN bundle from Cisco last month and the only IOS supported was 12.1(9)E. This may have changed with 12.2(13)T - do your homework and test it. With the VAM and the NPE-400 Cisco claims ~150Mbps throughput. Be sure to top it off with memory - if you are running lots of tunnels you will need the space. I haven't tested the performance myself and do not know how the split bus of the 7200's will affect performance of one PA or another depending on where it's plugged in. Not all my questions have been answered... The VPN bundle lists for $23,500 - apply your discount. That gives you fastethernet interfaces(2), the PA-VAM, and the NPE-400. You'll have to pay for more If you can use a newer IOS version (come ON Cisco...) you can run the easy VPN server on the box and make life so much easier. The 12.1 code does a good job of working with x.509 certs, but there is a lot of command change between 12.1(9) and 12.2(13)T, so watch your configurations carefully and be prepared to rewrite things between versions. The PA-ISA does run with a piece of 12.2 code (I have a client using it) and does just fine. In the case of both accellerators there is no AES support that I am aware of. If you are looking for AES, the software crypto engine is supposed to support it in 12.2(13)T on some(all?) platforms and I've heard that there's a new crypto hardware piece in the works to support it also. Just a thought: Depending on your application, you may consider buying two smaller VPN enabled routers (3600 or 2600) and using multiple tunnels frome each site to the hub for layer 3 based load balancing and fault tolerance. They are routers, make 'em route! (Or heck, just buy 2 7206 bundles... :) You may get performance every bit as good, with availability numbers that make you look like an uber-star to the boss. TTFN, Bill Pearch, Anchorage -Original Message- From: Edward Sohn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 10:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] thanks for the info. have you or anyone else any idea what configuration it takes for a 7200 router to be comparable in performance to a PIX 515 when it comes to a site-to-site VPN? for example, would a 7204VXR by itself be enough (over more than enough, for that matter) to meet the packet throughput performance of a PIX 515 on a 3DES ipsec tunnel set up site-to-site? i can't seem to find pps performance specs for the 7200 series... thanks, ed -Original Message- From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 1:46 PM To: Edward Sohn Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 7200 Router Questions... [7:59645] Edward Sohn wrote: > Can anyone help me answer a few questions regarding this series > router? > > 1. The spec sheet says it performs multiprotocol routing over ipsec. > My question is: how? Is there some inherent technology that performs > this feature, or is it the IOS's ability to create a GRE over an IPSEC > tunnel? 2. What are the main differences between the NPE's and NSE's? > I can't decide which processor I need. The primary differance is the NSE is it is only supported in the 7200VXR and incorporates the PXF processor for accelerated packet switching. > 3. What's the difference between the VXR models and the "normal" > models? To get VXR performance you must use at least a NPE300 and you get a MIX backplane, good for voice stuff. Also the VXR gives you increased backplane bandwidth capabilities. With the new NPE-1G you no longer have any bandwidth point limitations! Dave > > That's it, for starters...any help would be greatly appreciated. > > Ed -- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston Churchill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59780&t=59645 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
