CiscoWorks Support for Solaris Intel Builds [7:62168]
Does anyone know, has anyone performed a successful install of CW2K on an Intel build of Solaris ? Mahalo! Joe Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value. - Albert Einstein Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62168t=62168 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BGP beta exam 641-661 [7:62169]
Hi all What about the new BGP beta exam? will it be a new CCIP elective one? Regards Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62169t=62169 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Solarwinds Professional [7:62121]
raj, solarwinds will not give u a map. try whatsupgold http://www.ipswitch.com/ it is very good, cheap and easy to use Tunde - Original Message - From: Raj To: Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:26 PM Subject: Solarwinds Professional [7:62121] I have installed solarwinds prof. However, i was looking out for a graphical map of my network which seems to be missing. It has done a network discovery but is displaying the devices in a list form. Does anybody know if I could open another program included in solar. prof. to see a map or it lacks this functionality? If it does, i would like suggestions for any other programs(for eval) which display good network maps/discovery. thank you raj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62170t=62121 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DLSW remote-peer - frame-relay or tcp?? [7:62171]
Hello, If I have a bunch of routers connected via frame-relay and ospf the requirement is to configure DLSW peers between them, would I configure remote-peers with tcp or frame-relay? (if the requirement did not specifically state any).Thank you.Sincerely,CN The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62171t=62171 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IPSec over Tunnel - not working !! [7:62124]
Hello Claudio, No luck.I denied the tunnel intf. itself in the access-list and still same problem. The ospf neighbor relation goes down... R6-C#sh access-lists 199 Extended IP access list 199 deny ip 120.20.59.0 0.0.0.255 120.20.59.0 0.0.0.255 permit ip 120.20.0.0 0.0.255.55 120.20.0.0 0.0.255.255 permit ip 2.2.2.0 0.0.0.255 any log R6-C#ri tu 1 Building configuration... Current configuration : 164 bytes ! interface Tunnel1 ip address 120.20.59.6 255.255.255.0 ip access-group 102 in tunnel source 120.20.26.6 tunnel destination 120.20.26.2 crypto map mymap end R6-C# 2d23h: OSPF: 2.2.2.2 address 120.20.59.2 on Tunnel1 is dead 2d23h: OSPF: 2.2.2.2 address 120.20.59.2 on Tunnel1 is dead, state DOWN R6-C# 2d23h: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 1, Nbr 2.2.2.2 on Tunnel1 from FULL to DOWN, Neighbor Down: Dead timer expired The moment I remove the crypto map from the tunnel intf. it all starts working again!! Any ideas? From: Claudio Spescha Reply-To: Claudio Spescha To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: IPSec over Tunnel - not working !! [7:62124] Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:54:40 GMT Hello You should not encrypt the tunnel network itself. First line of access-list 199 should be: access-list 199 deny ip 120.20.59.0 0.0.0.255 120.20.59.0 0.0.0.255 The router can not build an OSPF adjacency on encrypted traffic. see misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62172t=62124 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ios version [7:62174]
the CCIE RS lab ios version is newer than 12.1(3)? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62174t=62174 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ospf area 0 range [7:62173]
I have a question,the ospf area 0 has /27 bits network,can use area 0 rane to summary to /24 bits netw,and advertise to others area? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62173t=62173 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCSI [7:62089]
Hello. vijay anandcd sagte: hi friends i want to know abt the CCSI certification,want to know how to achive itno informaion in cisco site abt this CCSI certification,,so if anybody knows abt this kindly send me few words First you need a Cisco Learning Partner (CLP) like Global Knowledge to sponsor you (AFAIK ~ USD 10.000 / year, payable to Cisco) You have to attend every seminar you intend to teach later on. Then you have to complete CCNA with a certain Nuber of Points (above Pass level). Your CLP will then be able to book an IRT (Instructional Readyness Test) for you (when I took it at the beginning of 2001 it was 2 days, 1st day lab, 2nd day a sample of your teaching / lecturing ability). The proctor will rate you and give you a pass or fail at the end of the second day. Best regards and good luck, Oliver thanking u VijayAnand - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Oliver Hensel telematis Netzwerke GmbH mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Siemensstrasse 23, D-76275 Ettlingen Tel: +49 (0) 7243-3448-0, Fax: -498 visit us: http://telematis.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62175t=62089 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DLSW remote-peer - frame-relay or tcp?? [7:62171]
I would use TCP. Although there are more header, all is up to TCP - link failures, retransmission... Cisco Nuts @groupstudy.com em 30/01/2003 08:58:17 Favor responder a Cisco Nuts Enviado Por: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Assunto:DLSW remote-peer - frame-relay or tcp?? [7:62171] Hello, If I have a bunch of routers connected via frame-relay and ospf the requirement is to configure DLSW peers between them, would I configure remote-peers with tcp or frame-relay? (if the requirement did not specifically state any).Thank you.Sincerely,CN The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62176t=62171 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: DLSW remote-peer - on a frame-relay p2p- possible?? [7:62177]
Hello Paul, Thank you very much for your reply. If I have a FR p2p intf. and if I need to configure the Dlsw peers using FR encap. is there a way to map llc2 to the dlci #? This is only possible on a FR multipoint or physical intf. but not on a p2p subif. So if not, then is tcp and fst the only option OR is there a Cisco hidden cmd. somewhere?? Thank you for your help. Sincerely, CN From: Casey, Paul (6822) To: 'Cisco Nuts' Subject: RE: DLSW remote-peer - frame-relay or tcp?? [7:62171] Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:04:30 - Tcp.Derfinite. Or even use FST., If they wanted you to use frame they would tell you, Use for the support of DLWS+lite. Mapping needed on multipoint interfaces, if I remember correctly, Kind regards., Paul.-Original Message- From: Cisco Nuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 30 January 2003 11:58 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: DLSW remote-peer - frame-relay or tcp?? [7:62171] Hello, If I have a bunch of routers connected via frame-relay and ospf the requirement is to configure DLSW peers between them, would I configure remote-peers with tcp or frame-relay? (if the requirement did not specifically state any).Thank you.Sincerely,CN The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This E-mail is from O2. The E-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may also be privileged and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Any unauthorised direct or indirect dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received the E-mail in error please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] or telephone ++ 353 1 6095000. * The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62177t=62177 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
Ultimately the functionality would be the same, I prefer to use the least amount of hardware possible to acheive a result, I feel it makes troubleshooting and administration easier. That being said I would use a layer 3 switch in this situation. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166] Dear All, Need your advice on the following scenario: I am using VLANs to provide the partitons for the traffic (voice and data) from various departments. In order to provide routing between various VLANs, I would need a router to do so. Please advice if there are any difference in the functionalities etc. if I use 1) a L3 switch for routing between VLANs, 2) a L2 switch followed by a router for routing between VLANs. Thanks in advance! Maurice Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62178t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Console problem [7:62179]
I have a strange problem or serious problem. I configured a Cisco 1605R router which was configured before. This time, I only changed E0 and E1 ip address, and default route through the console. After that, I put it into the server room, booted it up, but I couldn't ping the interfaces. I thought maybe the interfaces were not up, I should run no shutdown command. I took it back to the office, connected the console port to the com1, but it never comes back. It is dead. It can not boot. Nothing shows in Hyper Terminal. Maybe one time of ten times of reboot just shows @ . That is all. Note: console cable, com1, and Hyper terminal are working fine. Any ideas? Thanks Shawn _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62179t=62179 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what the h... - strange problem - Cisco doesn't like [7:62180]
Yes. As long as Charles knows he's not doing any filtering within his architecture, the filtering must be done at his ISP. But like I said earlier, the only way to be sure is running debug on the router and tcpdump on the host while downloading to see where the packets are dropped. Mossburg, Geoff (MAN-Corporate) wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... When you say, sounds like someone's content filtering upstream, are you talking about the frame provider? Geoff Mossburg -Original Message- From: Sam Sneed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 5:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: what the h... - strange problem - Cisco doesn't like [7:62149] That HUB doesn't know the difference between the various file name extensions and neither does the router. UNIX comes with tcpdump so there's no need to load the sniffer. Also run the debug command on the router to see if the packets are going through it if you don't see them getting to the UNIX box in tcpdump outputs. sounds like someone's content filtering upstream. Most admins will block .zip and exe but aren't concerned with the UNIX .tar and .gz variants. You'll know this for sure when you run the debug command on the router, Charles Riley wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Sorry, should have mentioned. I get the same result whether the user system is UNIX, Mac, or Windows...it plays havoc with .exe and .zip. That is a good suggestion, though, about the sniffer...that is about the only thing I haven't tried yet. The Kmart bluelight special hub is making me a little suspicious... Thanks, Charles Sam Sneed wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... load a packet sniffer on the laptop and see what really happens. If you don't have one I know of a good free one . You install libpcap first, reboot and then install analyzer. http://winpcap.polito.it/install/default.htm http://analyzer.polito.it/install/default.htm Then you can see if the packets are coming back to you and if windows is dropping them for some reason. Charles Riley wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I ran across a strange problem with one of our POPs the other day, and am in the process of researching/troubleshooting it. We have a configuration something like this: Internet---2500---AS5300---D/U Users Not shown is a LAN connected to the 2nd Ethernet on the 2500. All connections to the shared Ethernet are via a Kmart bluelight special hub. The connection to the Internet is a T-1 FR. Neither the 2500 nor the T-1 is anywhere close to being overloaded. We are not doing any content filtering, nor have any access lists been applied, nor are any sites blocked. The connection works great...email, web browsing, etc. all work just fine. The only problem is that users can only download UNIX and Mac flavored files, but not anything that smacks of Windows. For example, they can down the .gz/tar and .sft files for a SSH client for example, but can not download its .exe or .zip counterpart for Windows! Take the same .exe and .zip file, and rename it with a UNIX or Mac filename extension, and you can download it. Surprisingly enough, the problem does not lie with the users. I took a clean laptop to the site, and encountered the same results. Has anyone ever experienced a problem like this? Could this be a bug in the IOS on the 2500? Any suggestions would be welcome. TIA, Charles Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62180t=62180 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IP unnumbered for HDLC connection [7:62134]
If it is a loopback address lets say 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.252 the router will see the netblock local to the router. Lets say the other end is 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.252 Point-to-point. Try putting a route statement ip route 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.255 out the interface. This creates a more specific route for that IP. Daniel Ladrach CCNP,CCNA WorldCom -Original Message- From: Deepak N [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 4:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: IP unnumbered for HDLC connection [7:62134] HI All I have simple configuration of HDLC connected back to back. If i give ip unnumbered at one end and the static ip address at the other end, I cant ping the either end. But when i give show ip int brief, it shows the line and protocol are up. If i give ip unnumbered at both ends, now i am able to ping either end. could anybody help me out in this. Regards Deepak Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62181t=62134 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MTU size for IPSec+GRE tunnel [7:62161]
Hi Thomas, The answer is looking around and do some sniffing. The easy answer which I just used in a lab environment is to use an access-list to deny and fragments. We used it mainly to test IPX with GRE and force IPX to negotiate a bigger packet size than the standard 570 (I think). Use the keyword Fragments to deny any packets with that bit set. deny ip any any fragments. Nabil I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. Thomas N. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: nobody@groupstudySubject: MTU size for IPSec+GRE tunnel [7:62161] .com 01/29/2003 10:05 PM Please respond to Thomas N. Hi All, I am trying to avoid fragmentation of packets across the IPSec+GRE tunnel with transform-set using ah-sha-hmac AND esp-3des for header authentication and payload encryption. What size of MTU or TCP addjust-MSS should I use for maximum performance? I tried out couple values and found TCP adjust-mss of 1076 worked out OK most, but still don't understand why. According Cisco whitepaper, reducing MTU to about 1400 should void the fragmentation but it didn't work in my case. Please help. Thanks! Thomas Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62182t=62161 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DLSW promiscuous peering across a FR netw.?? [7:62183]
Hello,Have 2 routers in a FR netw. configured for Dlsw using FR encap with one side configured with just the promiscuous keyword only and the frame-relay map llc2 cmd. The other side is configured with the remote-peer and the frame-relay map llc2 cmd. Just to confirm: that this does not work, correct?R4-H#sh dlsw peers Peers:state pkts_rx pkts_tx type drops ckts TCP uptime LLC2 Se0 402 DISCONN 0 0 conf 00 -- Total number of connected peers: 0 Total number of connections: 0 Only when I configure a remote-peer cmd. on the hub using FR encap. does it work!! Can someone verify if this is true or if something is wrong with my config?? Thank you.Sincerely,CN Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62183t=62183 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Console problem [7:62179]
Random thoughts: Flash card is not inserted. I'd imagine in that case it would boot to rommon. Power supply is defective/ plug into router is bent. Then I'd expect no lights. Assuming the lights work - can you see the router boot? Console port is damaged. If you have another router try connecting it to an Ethernet port and see if you can vty from the good router to the 1605. -Original Message- From: Shawn Xu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 8:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Console problem [7:62179] I have a strange problem or serious problem. I configured a Cisco 1605R router which was configured before. This time, I only changed E0 and E1 ip address, and default route through the console. After that, I put it into the server room, booted it up, but I couldn't ping the interfaces. I thought maybe the interfaces were not up, I should run no shutdown command. I took it back to the office, connected the console port to the com1, but it never comes back. It is dead. It can not boot. Nothing shows in Hyper Terminal. Maybe one time of ten times of reboot just shows @ . That is all. Note: console cable, com1, and Hyper terminal are working fine. Any ideas? Thanks Shawn _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62185t=62179 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
A layer 3 switch is a switch with an RSM in it so the functionality would be the same as a router on a stick. You are still going to route once switch many(CAM table). Daniel Ladrach CCNP, CCNA WorldCom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166] Dear All, Need your advice on the following scenario: I am using VLANs to provide the partitons for the traffic (voice and data) from various departments. In order to provide routing between various VLANs, I would need a router to do so. Please advice if there are any difference in the functionalities etc. if I use 1) a L3 switch for routing between VLANs, 2) a L2 switch followed by a router for routing between VLANs. Thanks in advance! Maurice Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62186t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP beta exam 641-661 [7:62169]
Does this exam count for 1 Certification (CCIP)? Amin Moustafa wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Hi all What about the new BGP beta exam? will it be a new CCIP elective one? Regards Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62188t=62169 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TTCP support for 2500 platforms [7:62117]
I have not been able to find it on ANY platform other than the 12000 and 1, regardless of IOS version. I know Cisco tech docs state it is on all IOS versions 12.0 or newer but I have not found that to be the case. Let me know if you find out different. Brad Petru Stefan wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Hello, Does anyone know a ios for 2500 that contain support for ttcp.I've already tried the 12.0 ip plus but is not there. Regards Stefan Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62189t=62117 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what the h... - strange problem - MORE INFO [7:62184]
Thanks to all who have responded and requested more information. Below is a more embellished picture: Internet-BIG_ROUTER-FR-2500HUB---AS5300---D/U Users We are the ISP, in this case, which is why I can say no content filtering is occuring. We have several of these small POPs in the region, all of the going to BIG_ROUTER at a central location. BIG_ROUTER and its trusty configuration are not suspects at this point because the other POPs connected to it have no problem. In fact, if users dial into the POPs of nearby towns, they do not have this problem. This problem was brought to my attention about a week before the slammer attacks occured. The downloads are via HTTP and FTP; the results are the same. The problems occur with any server on the Internet. This morning, an user just informed that he can no longer download .img files. He also told that he logs attack traffic, and is seeing alot of scans and attempts against ports 137 (and sometimes 139) on his box. I don't think our FR provider is the problem since FR stops at Layer 2 and won't/can't distinguish between .zip and .gz files. I am thinking that perhaps there is a workstation or server connected to the hub that may be proxying or intercepting .zip and .exe requests? Sam's suggestion of sniffing is a good one, and will be probably be my next step as it's been a while since this POP LAN had its health checked. Troubleshooting continues! Charles Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Consider your OSI layers. :-) A hub problem is very unlikely to cause such an issue. A generic router wouldn't either. This definitely seems like a Layer 7 problem. Someone is filtering on .exe and .zip. They just weren't smart enough to think about the UNIX and Mac equivalents. This could be an Intrustion Detection System or some sort of smart firewall. How are they downloading these? E-mail attachments maybe? Not letting users download .exe files via e-mail attachments might make a lot of sense as an e-mail server configuration. Anyway, start looking at Layer 7 and above (politics, policies). Question your Internet provider! Priscilla Charles Riley wrote: Sorry, should have mentioned. I get the same result whether the user system is UNIX, Mac, or Windows...it plays havoc with .exe and .zip. That is a good suggestion, though, about the sniffer...that is about the only thing I haven't tried yet. The Kmart bluelight special hub is making me a little suspicious... Thanks, Charles Sam Sneed wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... load a packet sniffer on the laptop and see what really happens. If you don't have one I know of a good free one . You install libpcap first, reboot and then install analyzer. http://winpcap.polito.it/install/default.htm http://analyzer.polito.it/install/default.htm Then you can see if the packets are coming back to you and if windows is dropping them for some reason. Charles Riley wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I ran across a strange problem with one of our POPs the other day, and am in the process of researching/troubleshooting it. We have a configuration something like this: Internet---2500---AS5300---D/U Users Not shown is a LAN connected to the 2nd Ethernet on the 2500. All connections to the shared Ethernet are via a Kmart bluelight special hub. The connection to the Internet is a T-1 FR. Neither the 2500 nor the T-1 is anywhere close to being overloaded. We are not doing any content filtering, nor have any access lists been applied, nor are any sites blocked. The connection works great...email, web browsing, etc. all work just fine. The only problem is that users can only download UNIX and Mac flavored files, but not anything that smacks of Windows. For example, they can down the .gz/tar and .sft files for a SSH client for example, but can not download its .exe or .zip counterpart for Windows! Take the same .exe and .zip file, and rename it with a UNIX or Mac filename extension, and you can download it. Surprisingly enough, the problem does not lie with the users. I took a clean laptop to the site, and encountered the same results. Has anyone ever experienced a problem like this? Could this be a bug in the IOS on the 2500? Any suggestions would be welcome. TIA, Charles Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62184t=62184 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Security related - more info on slammer [7:62190]
saw this one today. sorry for the formatting or lack thereof. Hey Cthulu, this help with your problems? *MSDE MAY MAKE PRODUCTS VULNERABLE TO SLAMMER By Shawna McAlearney Several factors contributed to the success of the Slammer worm; the most noteworthy is that many victims don't know that products other than Microsoft's contain the vulnerable version of Microsoft SQL Desktop Engine (MSDE). There has been a lot of confusion as to what exactly was vulnerable to the exploit used by the worm--even among those who have the responsibility of coordinating that information, says Jose Nazario, a system verification architect for Arbor Networks, a DDoS mitigation company. It took CERT, which is presumably working closely with the vendor, a full two days to identify and publicize that MSDE is vulnerable. Russ Cooper, editor of NTBugtraq and surgeon general of TruSecure, says Microsoft needs to develop a stronger MSDE community with independent software vendors and keep track of the use of MSDE as a redistributable component. (TruSecure publishes Security Wire Digest.) NTBugtraq and the SQL Security Forum have produced a list of more than 100 potentially affected products. Those include: Compaq's Insight Manager, several Hewlett-Packard and Cisco Systems' products, Crystal Reports Enterprise 8.5, McAfee's ePolicy Orchestrator, Elron's IM Web Inspector Internet Filtering Software, ISS's System Scanner and RealSecure, SalesLogix and many others. Other contributing factors for the worm's spread include the failure of sysadmins to apply either the six-month-old patch or SQL Service Pack 3, the complexity of systems and networks and that it targeted a vulnerability in a widely used component. The average corporation will find that at least 25 percent of its machines have applications listening on UDP port 1434 (the port exploited by Slammer), says Cooper. That number could be much higher depending upon what kind of business the company is in. Though the worm seems to be tapering off, it could gain momentum again if ISPs stop filtering for it, say experts. http://www.sqlsecurity.com/forum/applicationslistgridall.aspx -- TANSTAAFL there ain't no such thing as a free lunch Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62190t=62190 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Router's for sale [7:62187]
Group,
I have following routers for sale. Would prefer buyer within Toronto or
Canada to avoid shipping charges. I had purchased these routers in 2001
{May}. All the routers are in good condition.
2501/2502/2503/2504 2511 - All with 16MB Flash/Ram - IOS 12.2 Enterprise
Plus
/ Ram
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62187t=62187
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
I'd be careful here. Wouldn't this only be the case (that you would route once, switch many) if you configure MLS on the both the switch and router? i.e. it's possible to have a switch trunk it's vlans to an external router, but without MLS, your router would still process *all* packets crossing between VLANS, not just the first packet in each flow. Without configuring MLS, all the switch is going to do is switch the traffic between and end device and the MAC of that device's default gateway (the router). With most of the newer L3 switches (6500s, 3550s, etc), I think that CEF is on by default (therefore you don't need to configure MLS). But even for 5000's and 5500's with RSMs, if you don't configure MLS, the RSM would still process all cross-VLAN packets. See this URL for setting up MLS (watch for wrap): http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat5000/rel_4_5/config/mls.htm Mike W. Ladrach, Daniel E. wrote: A layer 3 switch is a switch with an RSM in it so the functionality would be the same as a router on a stick. You are still going to route once switch many(CAM table). Daniel Ladrach CCNP, CCNA WorldCom Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62191t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IP unnumbered for HDLC connection [7:62134]
Hi Ladrach I tried with the route statement. it worked perfectly. but the problem is when i am running the routing protocol. i have given detailed configs for 3 different cases in the previous mails. Regards Deepak Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62193t=62134 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IP unnumbered for HDLC connection [7:62134]
Deepak N wrote: HI All I have simple configuration of HDLC connected back to back. If i give ip unnumbered at one end and the static ip address at the other end, I cant ping the either end. But when i give show ip int brief, it shows the line and protocol are up. If i give ip unnumbered at both ends, now i am able to ping either end. could anybody help me out in this. Regards Deepak This stuff is impossible to remember. Everytime I think I have it committed to memory, I wind up back at: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094e8d.shtml An interesting excerpt: The only real disadvantage that the unnumbered interface suffers from is that it is unavailable for remote testing and management. But more importantly: When unnumbered is used, a route that is learned via the unnumbered interace is placed into the routing table using the unnumbered _interface_ it came in on as opposed to the next hop IP. If the next hop IP were to be used, problems would arrise because tit isn't directly attached (everything eventually has to boil down to a directly attached interface so the packet can be offloaded). The next hop IP is on the back side of the distant-end unnumbered interface. Unnumbered was meant to conserve address space on p-t-p serial links. It was assumed that both ends would implement it. In the case of a numbered interface, the use the interface instead of next hop IP logic isn't implemented. Thus, the router inserts the next hop (which is behind the unnumbered inteface on the other end). The problem, of course, is that the next hop isn't directly attached. And no special logic has been implemented to compensate. I think I got that right. Read the link and see if it adds up. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62194t=62134 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OSPF to Eigrp redistribution?? [7:62195]
Hello,If I have RTA running OSPF with networks 1, 2, 3 and Eigrp with netw. 4 connected to RTB also running Eigrp . To mutually redistribute Ospf and Eigrp, would just a passive-interface under Eigrp to netws. 1, 2 and 3's intf. work or would I also have to configure a route-map under ospf denying these same routes that might come back from Eigrp? I would think that a passive-interface cmd. under Eigrp would suffice but would like to hear what other think? MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62195t=62195 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
1) define functionality 2) define difference in either case, the net result is the same. for inter-vlan forwarding on the same box, the integrated L3 switch will be faster because a) electrons don't have to travel as far and b) the stripping and rewriting of L2 headers can be more efficiently done ( if it is necessary at all ) on the integrated L3 switch. once in a while this group has entertained the discussion of the relative merits of L3 switches versus routers. it occurs to me that at the electron level integrated L3 switching is indeed superior to routing, or at least inter-vlan routing versus router on a stick. Howard - care to offer your insight here? I'm talking about things as they happen at the EE level. I'm not Howard of course. But if by EE level you mean propogation delay, I would think it wouldn't even be a consideration. I use 10 microseconds per mile (or 1 millisecond per hundred) as an in-your-head calculation in WAN environments. It isn't real exact, but with 10 or so feet of cable, that 10 microseconds per mile turns out to be a pretty small number. Router on a stick has to be slower and less efficient than integrated L3 for inter-vlan routing. OTOH, I don't see any advantage for an integrated L3 switch acting solely as a router, forwarding traffic from itself to another router down the wire, all other things being equal. I would have to agree. Have you seen the new ethernet switch module for the 2600/3600/3700 series routers? I'm buying several for an upcoming project. You now can get an integrated switch in your router vs. and integrated router in your switch!! This is really cool if you have a small number of machines that all need to be in a different VLAN (multiple network management platforms at remote sites, for example) but you don't want to / don't have the rack space / cash for a switch. Only drawback: requires lots of flash and DRAM on the router. Older non-MX 2600s are not a candidate I recently found out because they cap out at 16M flash (required minumum 32M). A final note: I've been warming up to L3 switches in recent months and can say that they are definately easier to configure than router on a stick. Lots of stuff is on by default. Thanks in advance! Maurice Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62196t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IP unnumbered for HDLC connection [7:62134]
Hi Vermill Now I got the point. So when i am using the numbered interface, the router tries to reach the next hop via the next hop ip address, in my case it is behind the directly connected interface.But it has no way of finding the next hop ip address behind the unnumbered interface. So it was not able to reach the other end. While both are unnumbered, the routes were installed based on the outgoing interface. Thank you all for helping me out to find the solution. Thanks n regards Deepak Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62197t=62134 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP beta exam 641-661 [7:62169]
Amin Moustafa wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... What about the new BGP beta exam? will it be a new CCIP elective one? My guess is that Cisco is replacing the MCAST+QOS course with BGP and making it a required part of CCIP certification, not as an elective. -dre Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62198t=62169 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IP unnumbered for HDLC connection [7:62134]
Deepak N wrote: Hi Vermill Now I got the point. So when i am using the numbered interface, the router tries to reach the next hop via the next hop ip address, in my case it is behind the directly connected interface.But it has no way of finding the next hop ip address behind the unnumbered interface. So it was not able to reach the other end. While both are unnumbered, the routes were installed based on the outgoing interface. Thank you all for helping me out to find the solution. Thanks n regards Deepak Yes, I think you have it. But I was interested in some other suggestions that were made. If, on the numbered end, you entered a static route to the unnumbered interface IP using the outgoing interface, it seems like it might work. Something like: 'ip route 192.168.100.1 s0' where 192.168.100.1 was the IP of the interface being referenced in the 'ip unnumbered' statement and s0 attaches to the unnumbered interface. But something might break in the routing protocol. Again, I think it was assumed that you're going to implement unnumbered on both ends of the link in order to realize address conservation. There might also be some exchanges of information between the unnumbered interfaces that we're not aware of. An asymetrical configuration might break that. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62199t=62134 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TTCP support for 2500 platforms [7:62117]
It's also supported on the 7500 and 7200 series routers. Dave Brad wrote: I have not been able to find it on ANY platform other than the 12000 and 1, regardless of IOS version. I know Cisco tech docs state it is on all IOS versions 12.0 or newer but I have not found that to be the case. Let me know if you find out different. Brad Petru Stefan wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Hello, Does anyone know a ios for 2500 that contain support for ttcp.I've already tried the 12.0 ip plus but is not there. Regards Stefan -- 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=7i=62201t=62117 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
The router is probably in the same rack as the switch. The cable is probaby very short. The fact that electrons have to travel across it is not a consideration. They travel at about 2/3 the speed of light. Priscilla The Long and Winding Road wrote: wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Dear All, Need your advice on the following scenario: I am using VLANs to provide the partitons for the traffic (voice and data) from various departments. In order to provide routing between various VLANs, I would need a router to do so. Please advice if there are any difference in the functionalities etc. if I use 1) a L3 switch for routing between VLANs, 2) a L2 switch followed by a router for routing between VLANs. 1) define functionality 2) define difference in either case, the net result is the same. for inter-vlan forwarding on the same box, the integrated L3 switch will be faster because a) electrons don't have to travel as far and b) the stripping and rewriting of L2 headers can be more efficiently done ( if it is necessary at all ) on the integrated L3 switch. once in a while this group has entertained the discussion of the relative merits of L3 switches versus routers. it occurs to me that at the electron level integrated L3 switching is indeed superior to routing, or at least inter-vlan routing versus router on a stick. Howard - care to offer your insight here? I'm talking about things as they happen at the EE level. Router on a stick has to be slower and less efficient than integrated L3 for inter-vlan routing. OTOH, I don't see any advantage for an integrated L3 switch acting solely as a router, forwarding traffic from itself to another router down the wire, all other things being equal. Thanks in advance! Maurice Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62202t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
where did the other 1/3 of the speed go ? :) Larry Letterman Network Engineer Cisco Systems The router is probably in the same rack as the switch. The cable is probaby very short. The fact that electrons have to travel across it is not a consideration. They travel at about 2/3 the speed of light. Priscilla The Long and Winding Road wrote: wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Dear All, Need your advice on the following scenario: I am using VLANs to provide the partitons for the traffic (voice and data) from various departments. In order to provide routing between various VLANs, I would need a router to do so. Please advice if there are any difference in the functionalities etc. if I use 1) a L3 switch for routing between VLANs, 2) a L2 switch followed by a router for routing between VLANs. 1) define functionality 2) define difference in either case, the net result is the same. for inter-vlan forwarding on the same box, the integrated L3 switch will be faster because a) electrons don't have to travel as far and b) the stripping and rewriting of L2 headers can be more efficiently done ( if it is necessary at all ) on the integrated L3 switch. once in a while this group has entertained the discussion of the relative merits of L3 switches versus routers. it occurs to me that at the electron level integrated L3 switching is indeed superior to routing, or at least inter-vlan routing versus router on a stick. Howard - care to offer your insight here? I'm talking about things as they happen at the EE level. Router on a stick has to be slower and less efficient than integrated L3 for inter-vlan routing. OTOH, I don't see any advantage for an integrated L3 switch acting solely as a router, forwarding traffic from itself to another router down the wire, all other things being equal. Thanks in advance! Maurice [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62203t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
Larry Letterman wrote: where did the other 1/3 of the speed go ? :) Larry Letterman Network Engineer Cisco Systems Scenic overlooks, bathroom breaks, and whatnot. There isn't much worth stopping off for in the vacuum of space. It's kinda like the eastern half of my state. Hit the gas! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62204t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OSPF to Eigrp redistribution?? [7:62195]
It depends. If networks 1,2,3,4 are all subnets of a major network then EIGRP will advertise the major network unless you turn some knobs. Chuck recently pointed out that from IOS 12.0 subnets could be advertised with the network a.b.c.d wildcard mask line. If network 4 is its own network then it shouldn't be an issue. Here's an added goodie. Quoted from the Cisco Press book EIGRP Network Design Solutions The passive-interface default command is implemented in IOS 12.0 and gives you a nice way of configuring routing processes that are supposed to run over a small number of interfaces. In previous IOS versions, you had to configure all the other interfaces as passive. -Original Message- From: Cisco Nuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OSPF to Eigrp redistribution?? [7:62195] Hello,If I have RTA running OSPF with networks 1, 2, 3 and Eigrp with netw. 4 connected to RTB also running Eigrp . To mutually redistribute Ospf and Eigrp, would just a passive-interface under Eigrp to netws. 1, 2 and 3's intf. work or would I also have to configure a route-map under ospf denying these same routes that might come back from Eigrp? I would think that a passive-interface cmd. under Eigrp would suffice but would like to hear what other think? -- -- MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62205t=62195 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... The router is probably in the same rack as the switch. The cable is probaby very short. The fact that electrons have to travel across it is not a consideration. They travel at about 2/3 the speed of light. I was being half facetious while referring to the fact that router on a stick has to do things with the L2 headers as it forwards, while an intergrated L3 switch does not. Along with the CPU interrupt times and issues. Agreed - this might be a factor only on high end equipment passing zillions of packets and frames. Priscilla The Long and Winding Road wrote: wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Dear All, Need your advice on the following scenario: I am using VLANs to provide the partitons for the traffic (voice and data) from various departments. In order to provide routing between various VLANs, I would need a router to do so. Please advice if there are any difference in the functionalities etc. if I use 1) a L3 switch for routing between VLANs, 2) a L2 switch followed by a router for routing between VLANs. 1) define functionality 2) define difference in either case, the net result is the same. for inter-vlan forwarding on the same box, the integrated L3 switch will be faster because a) electrons don't have to travel as far and b) the stripping and rewriting of L2 headers can be more efficiently done ( if it is necessary at all ) on the integrated L3 switch. once in a while this group has entertained the discussion of the relative merits of L3 switches versus routers. it occurs to me that at the electron level integrated L3 switching is indeed superior to routing, or at least inter-vlan routing versus router on a stick. Howard - care to offer your insight here? I'm talking about things as they happen at the EE level. Router on a stick has to be slower and less efficient than integrated L3 for inter-vlan routing. OTOH, I don't see any advantage for an integrated L3 switch acting solely as a router, forwarding traffic from itself to another router down the wire, all other things being equal. Thanks in advance! Maurice Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62206t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IP unnumbered for HDLC connection [7:62134]
Glad you got it figured out and I hope you learned some reason(s) not to do unnumbered. I can't think of and good reasons for it and if you running out of addresses I have an RFC full of them for you;) Dave Deepak N wrote: Hi Vermill Now I got the point. So when i am using the numbered interface, the router tries to reach the next hop via the next hop ip address, in my case it is behind the directly connected interface.But it has no way of finding the next hop ip address behind the unnumbered interface. So it was not able to reach the other end. While both are unnumbered, the routes were installed based on the outgoing interface. Thank you all for helping me out to find the solution. Thanks n regards Deepak -- 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=7i=62207t=62134 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
Hmmm, IOS imgaes that are approaching, (in some cases exceeding) 20M ;) Dave Larry Letterman wrote: where did the other 1/3 of the speed go ? :) Larry Letterman Network Engineer Cisco Systems The router is probably in the same rack as the switch. The cable is probaby very short. The fact that electrons have to travel across it is not a consideration. They travel at about 2/3 the speed of light. Priscilla The Long and Winding Road wrote: wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Dear All, Need your advice on the following scenario: I am using VLANs to provide the partitons for the traffic (voice and data) from various departments. In order to provide routing between various VLANs, I would need a router to do so. Please advice if there are any difference in the functionalities etc. if I use 1) a L3 switch for routing between VLANs, 2) a L2 switch followed by a router for routing between VLANs. 1) define functionality 2) define difference in either case, the net result is the same. for inter-vlan forwarding on the same box, the integrated L3 switch will be faster because a) electrons don't have to travel as far and b) the stripping and rewriting of L2 headers can be more efficiently done ( if it is necessary at all ) on the integrated L3 switch. once in a while this group has entertained the discussion of the relative merits of L3 switches versus routers. it occurs to me that at the electron level integrated L3 switching is indeed superior to routing, or at least inter-vlan routing versus router on a stick. Howard - care to offer your insight here? I'm talking about things as they happen at the EE level. Router on a stick has to be slower and less efficient than integrated L3 for inter-vlan routing. OTOH, I don't see any advantage for an integrated L3 switch acting solely as a router, forwarding traffic from itself to another router down the wire, all other things being equal. Thanks in advance! Maurice [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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=7i=62208t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
Larry Letterman wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... where did the other 1/3 of the speed go ? :) consider your relative speed running from building to building on the Cisco campus a) under current conditions, b) if there were no asphalt, but only soft mud, or c) if the Cisco campus were underwater, in which case all your running would be irrelevant anyway ;- Larry Letterman Network Engineer Cisco Systems The router is probably in the same rack as the switch. The cable is probaby very short. The fact that electrons have to travel across it is not a consideration. They travel at about 2/3 the speed of light. Priscilla The Long and Winding Road wrote: wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Dear All, Need your advice on the following scenario: I am using VLANs to provide the partitons for the traffic (voice and data) from various departments. In order to provide routing between various VLANs, I would need a router to do so. Please advice if there are any difference in the functionalities etc. if I use 1) a L3 switch for routing between VLANs, 2) a L2 switch followed by a router for routing between VLANs. 1) define functionality 2) define difference in either case, the net result is the same. for inter-vlan forwarding on the same box, the integrated L3 switch will be faster because a) electrons don't have to travel as far and b) the stripping and rewriting of L2 headers can be more efficiently done ( if it is necessary at all ) on the integrated L3 switch. once in a while this group has entertained the discussion of the relative merits of L3 switches versus routers. it occurs to me that at the electron level integrated L3 switching is indeed superior to routing, or at least inter-vlan routing versus router on a stick. Howard - care to offer your insight here? I'm talking about things as they happen at the EE level. Router on a stick has to be slower and less efficient than integrated L3 for inter-vlan routing. OTOH, I don't see any advantage for an integrated L3 switch acting solely as a router, forwarding traffic from itself to another router down the wire, all other things being equal. Thanks in advance! Maurice [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62209t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
MADMAN wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Hmmm, IOS imgaes that are approaching, (in some cases exceeding) 20M ;) speaking of which, how big would the same IOS image be without Banyan, DecNet, Apollo, and all the other obsolete garbage that contaminates them now? Dave Larry Letterman wrote: where did the other 1/3 of the speed go ? :) Larry Letterman Network Engineer Cisco Systems The router is probably in the same rack as the switch. The cable is probaby very short. The fact that electrons have to travel across it is not a consideration. They travel at about 2/3 the speed of light. Priscilla The Long and Winding Road wrote: wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Dear All, Need your advice on the following scenario: I am using VLANs to provide the partitons for the traffic (voice and data) from various departments. In order to provide routing between various VLANs, I would need a router to do so. Please advice if there are any difference in the functionalities etc. if I use 1) a L3 switch for routing between VLANs, 2) a L2 switch followed by a router for routing between VLANs. 1) define functionality 2) define difference in either case, the net result is the same. for inter-vlan forwarding on the same box, the integrated L3 switch will be faster because a) electrons don't have to travel as far and b) the stripping and rewriting of L2 headers can be more efficiently done ( if it is necessary at all ) on the integrated L3 switch. once in a while this group has entertained the discussion of the relative merits of L3 switches versus routers. it occurs to me that at the electron level integrated L3 switching is indeed superior to routing, or at least inter-vlan routing versus router on a stick. Howard - care to offer your insight here? I'm talking about things as they happen at the EE level. Router on a stick has to be slower and less efficient than integrated L3 for inter-vlan routing. OTOH, I don't see any advantage for an integrated L3 switch acting solely as a router, forwarding traffic from itself to another router down the wire, all other things being equal. Thanks in advance! Maurice [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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=7i=62210t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Solarwinds Professional [7:62121]
Previously NetSaint. http://www.nagios.org/ Has anyone been using this??? I'm considering implementing it. -Original Message- From: Tunde Kalejaiye [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 3:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Solarwinds Professional [7:62121] raj, solarwinds will not give u a map. try whatsupgold http://www.ipswitch.com/ it is very good, cheap and easy to use Tunde - Original Message - From: Raj To: Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:26 PM Subject: Solarwinds Professional [7:62121] I have installed solarwinds prof. However, i was looking out for a graphical map of my network which seems to be missing. It has done a network discovery but is displaying the devices in a list form. Does anybody know if I could open another program included in solar. prof. to see a map or it lacks this functionality? If it does, i would like suggestions for any other programs(for eval) which display good network maps/discovery. thank you raj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62211t=62121 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
The Long and Winding Road wrote: Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... The router is probably in the same rack as the switch. The cable is probaby very short. The fact that electrons have to travel across it is not a consideration. They travel at about 2/3 the speed of light. I was being half facetious while referring to the fact that router on a stick has to do things with the L2 headers as it forwards, while an intergrated L3 switch does not. Really? I haven't looked too deeply into the inner workings of L3 switches. I was under the impression that router-on-a-stick could apply MLS flow masks (or CEF) on a switch just as an integrated router blade can. Or maybe you meant something else. Along with the CPU interrupt times and issues. Agreed - this might be a factor only on high end equipment passing zillions of packets and frames. Priscilla The Long and Winding Road wrote: wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Dear All, Need your advice on the following scenario: I am using VLANs to provide the partitons for the traffic (voice and data) from various departments. In order to provide routing between various VLANs, I would need a router to do so. Please advice if there are any difference in the functionalities etc. if I use 1) a L3 switch for routing between VLANs, 2) a L2 switch followed by a router for routing between VLANs. 1) define functionality 2) define difference in either case, the net result is the same. for inter-vlan forwarding on the same box, the integrated L3 switch will be faster because a) electrons don't have to travel as far and b) the stripping and rewriting of L2 headers can be more efficiently done ( if it is necessary at all ) on the integrated L3 switch. once in a while this group has entertained the discussion of the relative merits of L3 switches versus routers. it occurs to me that at the electron level integrated L3 switching is indeed superior to routing, or at least inter-vlan routing versus router on a stick. Howard - care to offer your insight here? I'm talking about things as they happen at the EE level. Router on a stick has to be slower and less efficient than integrated L3 for inter-vlan routing. OTOH, I don't see any advantage for an integrated L3 switch acting solely as a router, forwarding traffic from itself to another router down the wire, all other things being equal. Thanks in advance! Maurice Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62212t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
VPN with Cisco router and digital certificates [7:62213]
I have a 3600 router that current supports PPTP win2K clients using win2K client. I do not wnat to use Cisco client for VPN. What I am trying to do is authenticate using digital certificates. The Cert server is Win2K certificate server. I used a MS machine as VPN server with certificates and it works. I now need to get the Cisco router to do the same. Currently VPN users connecting to 3640 router and are authenticated via IAS using domain logons and it works fine this way. Has anyone implemented this? The router has certificate and it all looks OK. I'm not sure how to configure the router to use digital certificates to authenticate the users instead of username/password. When I try to login I get verifying username and password and then error 619 : the specifoed port is not connected. Here is config: aaa new-model aaa authentication login default group tacacs+ local line none aaa authentication ppp default group radius aaa authorization network default group radius none enable secret 5 $1$2MGM$ttPEfWBYGVf.Hc78TEuwn0 vpdn enable ! vpdn-group 1 ! Default PPTP VPDN group accept-dialin protocol pptp virtual-template 1 ! vpdn-group 2 ! ! crypto ca identity mscert enrollment mode ra enrollment url http://99.17.4.20:80/certsrv/mscep/mscep.dll crypto ca certificate chain mscert certificate 61285CC90004 ... ... 1CAC37AB 61BDC6 quit certificate ra-sign 6144F5320002 .. quit certificate ra-encrypt 6144F7EF0003 . . certificate ca 1B36F87430D2D4AC47DC9C0E1C4D9320 interface Virtual-Template1 ip unnumbered FastEthernet0/0 ip nat inside ip mroute-cache no keepalive peer default ip address pool vpn ppp encrypt mppe 128 required ppp authentication ms-chap ppp timeout authentication 5 ! ip local pool vpn 123.17.10.31 123.17.10.254 . Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62213t=62213 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IP unnumbered for HDLC connection [7:62134]
MADMAN wrote: Glad you got it figured out and I hope you learned some reason(s) not to do unnumbered. I can't think of and good reasons for it and if you running out of addresses I have an RFC full of them for you;) Dave, I heard rumor to the effect that Cisco would introduce /31 mask support for serial p-t-p links. Anyone tried that yet? I keep forgeting to when on a router with shiny new IOS. Scott Dave Deepak N wrote: Hi Vermill Now I got the point. So when i am using the numbered interface, the router tries to reach the next hop via the next hop ip address, in my case it is behind the directly connected interface.But it has no way of finding the next hop ip address behind the unnumbered interface. So it was not able to reach the other end. While both are unnumbered, the routes were installed based on the outgoing interface. Thank you all for helping me out to find the solution. Thanks n regards Deepak -- 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=7i=62214t=62134 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
The Long and Winding Road wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... MADMAN wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Hmmm, IOS imgaes that are approaching, (in some cases exceeding) 20M ;) speaking of which, how big would the same IOS image be without Banyan, DecNet, Apollo, and all the other obsolete garbage that contaminates them now? Valid point, but those components aren't the things that are causing bloat. Unless I'm giving too much credit to compile time optimizations. Banyan, dec, apollo, aren't getting new features, aren't causing non-linear image growth, and thus are not the cause of image bloat. Removing them, although useful, won't buy much time as the things causing the bloat will keep coming and surpass the savings before one calendar year is up. But I'd say 3 months is a better estimate. It's the items that a small number of folks actually use that would be a good target to eliminate. But those are the new features which are part of the story. Without the benefits of modular software and also to maintain low enough testing overhead; there are not great options(there ARE some options) to slow the bloat. Darrell http://www.netswitch.net Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62215t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voip call forwarding [7:62216]
Hello all I am trying to forward some voip call to another router from voip termination router. But how i do not know how to do this any help would be apriciated thanks in advance Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62216t=62216 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IP unnumbered for HDLC connection [7:62134]
In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote: I heard rumor to the effect that Cisco would introduce /31 mask support for serial p-t-p links. Anyone tried that yet? I keep forgeting to when on a router with shiny new IOS. It works well on all platforms I've used it on. Introduced in 12.2(2)T, ie. a long time ago ;-) // kaj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62218t=62134 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote: speaking of which, how big would the same IOS image be without Banyan, DecNet, Apollo, and all the other obsolete garbage that contaminates them now? A bunch of stuff got purged in 12.2(13)T. The images not much of a reduction in size though, new features take a lot of space too (for example c1700-k9o3sy7 for 12.2(11)T is 7461136, for 12.2(13)T 8231552 bytes.) // kaj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62217t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IP unnumbered for HDLC connection [7:62134]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaj J. Niemi) wrote: In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote: I heard rumor to the effect that Cisco would introduce /31 mask support for serial p-t-p links. Anyone tried that yet? I keep forgeting to when on a router with shiny new IOS. It works well on all platforms I've used it on. Introduced in 12.2(2)T, Cool! ie. a long time ago ;-) Yeah, most of my clients are of the if it aint broke, don't upgrade it mentality. And a lot of my lab stuff doesn't have enough memory to go beyond 12.1. I'm often times 6 or more months behind the curve on IOS. Thanks for the update. // kaj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62219t=62134 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaj J. Niemi) wrote: In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote: speaking of which, how big would the same IOS image be without Banyan, DecNet, Apollo, and all the other obsolete garbage that contaminates them now? A bunch of stuff got purged in 12.2(13)T. The images not much of a reduction in size though, new features take a lot of space too (for example c1700-k9o3sy7 for 12.2(11)T is 7461136, for 12.2(13)T 8231552 bytes.) Not something you want to have to X-modem to bootflash! // kaj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62220t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
The Long and Winding Road wrote: Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... The router is probably in the same rack as the switch. The cable is probaby very short. The fact that electrons have to travel across it is not a consideration. They travel at about 2/3 the speed of light. I was being half facetious while referring to the fact that router on a stick has to do things with the L2 headers as it forwards, while an intergrated L3 switch does not. Along with the CPU interrupt times and issues. Agreed - this might be a factor only on high end equipment passing zillions of packets and frames. Priscilla The Long and Winding Road wrote: wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Dear All, Need your advice on the following scenario: I am using VLANs to provide the partitons for the traffic (voice and data) from various departments. In order to provide routing between various VLANs, I would need a router to do so. Please advice if there are any difference in the functionalities etc. if I use 1) a L3 switch for routing between VLANs, 2) a L2 switch followed by a router for routing between VLANs. 1) define functionality 2) define difference in either case, the net result is the same. for inter-vlan forwarding on the same box, the integrated L3 switch will be faster because a) electrons don't have to travel as far and b) the stripping and rewriting of L2 headers can be more efficiently done ( if it is necessary at all ) on the integrated L3 switch. once in a while this group has entertained the discussion of the relative merits of L3 switches versus routers. it occurs to me that at the electron level integrated L3 switching is indeed superior to routing, or at least inter-vlan routing versus router on a stick. Howard - care to offer your insight here? I'm talking about things as they happen at the EE level. Router on a stick has to be slower and less efficient than integrated L3 for inter-vlan routing. OTOH, I don't see any advantage for an integrated L3 switch acting solely as a router, forwarding traffic from itself to another router down the wire, all other things being equal. Thanks in advance! Maurice Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62221t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
Oops. The last one was a Null Post. I meant to hit the Quote button and hit the Post button instead. I do have a few comments, though, of course. :-) See below. Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: The Long and Winding Road wrote: Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... The router is probably in the same rack as the switch. The cable is probaby very short. The fact that electrons have to travel across it is not a consideration. They travel at about 2/3 the speed of light. I was being half facetious while referring to the fact that router on a stick has to do things with the L2 headers as it forwards, while an intergrated L3 switch does not. Along with the CPU interrupt times and issues. You mentioned two things, to quote your message: the integrated L3 switch will be faster because a)electrons don't have to travel as far and b) the stripping and rewriting of L2 headers can be more efficiently done (if it is necessary at all ) on the integrated L3 switch. The first one is silly. The second one is interesting. I would think that the L2 headers would still have to be rewritten, for traffic going through the router part of the swouter, (my new name for a cross between a switch and a router.) I could believe that it's much more efficent on the swouter than on a router, though. For one thing, the swouter probably has modern hardware components and a more optimized architecture. Anything else you can say on this aspect? Thanks, Priscilla Agreed - this might be a factor only on high end equipment passing zillions of packets and frames. Priscilla The Long and Winding Road wrote: wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Dear All, Need your advice on the following scenario: I am using VLANs to provide the partitons for the traffic (voice and data) from various departments. In order to provide routing between various VLANs, I would need a router to do so. Please advice if there are any difference in the functionalities etc. if I use 1) a L3 switch for routing between VLANs, 2) a L2 switch followed by a router for routing between VLANs. 1) define functionality 2) define difference in either case, the net result is the same. for inter-vlan forwarding on the same box, the integrated L3 switch will be faster because a) electrons don't have to travel as far and b) the stripping and rewriting of L2 headers can be more efficiently done ( if it is necessary at all ) on the integrated L3 switch. once in a while this group has entertained the discussion of the relative merits of L3 switches versus routers. it occurs to me that at the electron level integrated L3 switching is indeed superior to routing, or at least inter-vlan routing versus router on a stick. Howard - care to offer your insight here? I'm talking about things as they happen at the EE level. Router on a stick has to be slower and less efficient than integrated L3 for inter-vlan routing. OTOH, I don't see any advantage for an integrated L3 switch acting solely as a router, forwarding traffic from itself to another router down the wire, all other things being equal. Thanks in advance! Maurice Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
MADMAN wrote: Hmmm, IOS imgaes that are approaching, (in some cases exceeding) 20M ;) I'm not sure what your point it, other than to be funny :-), but I do have to say that it doesn't matter that it's a 20 MB file when talking about the file travelling across a fraction of an inch within a switch versus the file travelling across say a 10-foot cable. OK, so the first bit would incur maybe an extra 20 nanoseconds of delay. The remaining 160,000,000 bits would be right behind the first one and wouldn't encounter any extra delay. Dave Larry Letterman wrote: where did the other 1/3 of the speed go ? Resistance caused by the cable properties. (It should have said 2/3 the speed of light in a vacuum). Priscilla :) Larry Letterman Network Engineer Cisco Systems The router is probably in the same rack as the switch. The cable is probaby very short. The fact that electrons have to travel across it is not a consideration. They travel at about 2/3 the speed of light. Priscilla The Long and Winding Road wrote: wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Dear All, Need your advice on the following scenario: I am using VLANs to provide the partitons for the traffic (voice and data) from various departments. In order to provide routing between various VLANs, I would need a router to do so. Please advice if there are any difference in the functionalities etc. if I use 1) a L3 switch for routing between VLANs, 2) a L2 switch followed by a router for routing between VLANs. 1) define functionality 2) define difference in either case, the net result is the same. for inter-vlan forwarding on the same box, the integrated L3 switch will be faster because a) electrons don't have to travel as far and b) the stripping and rewriting of L2 headers can be more efficiently done ( if it is necessary at all ) on the integrated L3 switch. once in a while this group has entertained the discussion of the relative merits of L3 switches versus routers. it occurs to me that at the electron level integrated L3 switching is indeed superior to routing, or at least inter-vlan routing versus router on a stick. Howard - care to offer your insight here? I'm talking about things as they happen at the EE level. Router on a stick has to be slower and less efficient than integrated L3 for inter-vlan routing. OTOH, I don't see any advantage for an integrated L3 switch acting solely as a router, forwarding traffic from itself to another router down the wire, all other things being equal. Thanks in advance! Maurice [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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=7i=62223t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco 1720 [7:11826]
In mail.net.groupstudy.assoc, you wrote: I run several 1720's on my network 24x7 with no problems. I'm not sure what's causing yours, but it doesn't sound like normal behavior to me. It sounds like a software related problem (ie. bug), there used to be a problem in pre 12.2(11)T (IP+/ADSL set) on the c1700 platform I encountered where the DSL interface would stop sending packets when a would occur. Sometimes just bouncing the interface would help for a while (hours.) Powercycling the router would keep it from happening for a longer period of time. This was against flex-atucs on 6260s. A search on bugnav might also be helpful. // kaj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62224t=11826 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PIX Scenario [7:62047]
This isn't entirely correct. You can have a private IP address on your outside interface and have it NAT'd to a public IP address and then terminate the tunnel there. I am assuming this is what you are doing. Yes it can be done. Yes it will work with IKE Mode Configuration which is the same functionality of the vpngroup. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62225t=62047 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CiscoWorks on Solaris or Win2K ? [7:62226]
One more thing - Is anyone running the latest version of the LMS suite on an Ultra-II ? I have a choice between an Ultra-II with dual 166Mhz, 512Mb RAM, or a Dell 2400 with Dual P-III 500Mhz and 512 MB RAM. I figured that the native port on Solaris would perform better. Any suggestions ? Thanks - Joe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of HulaJoe Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CiscoWorks Support for Solaris Intel Builds [7:62168] Does anyone know, has anyone performed a successful install of CW2K on an Intel build of Solaris ? Mahalo! Joe Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value. - Albert Einstein Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62226t=62226 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cisco DT-24+ [7:62227]
Anyone using these? Since they are EOL I am forced to buy used ones. Just wanted to know if there are any inherent problems. I am looking for 3 PRI lines to an Inter-Tel PBX. Steve Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62227t=62227 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Switching Swtich/Router Comparsion [7:62166]
(combining two of Priscilla's posts) At 10:52 PM + 1/30/03, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: MADMAN wrote: Hmmm, IOS imgaes that are approaching, (in some cases exceeding) 20M ;) I'm not sure what your point it, other than to be funny :-), but I do have to say that it doesn't matter that it's a 20 MB file when talking about the file travelling across a fraction of an inch within a switch versus the file travelling across say a 10-foot cable. OK, so the first bit would incur maybe an extra 20 nanoseconds of delay. The remaining 160,000,000 bits would be right behind the first one and wouldn't encounter any extra delay. Dave Larry Letterman wrote: where did the other 1/3 of the speed go ? Resistance caused by the cable properties. (It should have said 2/3 the speed of light in a vacuum). Why worry? Resistance is futile. At 5:52 PM -0500 1/30/03, Priscilla wrote: I would think that the L2 headers would still have to be rewritten, for traffic going through the router part of the swouter, (my new name for a cross between a switch and a router.) I rather like that. If you had chosen to call it a ritch, that is something we in the industry are not, these days. If you're doing L3 decisionmaking, I don't see how you'll get any performance improvement in L2, assuming you aren't breaking the rules of routing. An L2 switch, true, can pass the MAC addresses unchanged, and, in the strict scheme of things, doesn't need to recompute the FCS. If you are making decisions at L3, you aren't going to get any particular benefit given that you need to substitute the router egress port MAC address for the previous-hop source, and recompute the FCS. But, since FCS computation is routinely in hardware, I can't see that as being an issue. Now, some Cisco switches play games, and associate a MAC address with an L3 address, and don't do L3 lookup. If you are going subnet-to-subnet, you introduce several potential issues: --security: what happens if the MAC address or its mapping changes? --ARP: how does it resolve if the target subnet thinks it's getting a frame based on L2 information? This violates the local versus remote axiom of IP. Ye canna violate the laws of routin', Kiptin. I could believe that it's much more efficent on the swouter than on a router, though. For one thing, the swouter probably has modern hardware components and a more optimized architecture. Anything else you can say on this aspect? But isn't that a product implementation rather than an architectural question? On the router designs I worked on, which were unquestionably architected for L3 decisionmaking, most of the per-frame processing was on the ingress forwarding card, such as FIB lookup. That sort of hardware, indeed, is expensive. It made sense with multiple OC-192, but wouldn't for a price-optimized SOHO router. But look even within the pure router Cisco product line, and you'll see all manner of price-performance tradeoffs. Non-modular is cheaper than modular. Having less memory expansion is cheaper than having addressing space and card footprint for more. Frankly, I see very little difference between an L3 capable switch and a high-performance router -- but you very well may not need the performance. In a very-high-end router, the main contributors to delay are extensive preprocessing or postprocessing (e.g.., QoS, encryption), and the delay in getting the frame across the fabric (I'm not even touching multicast). Shared bus architectures run out of steam at about 2 Gbps, and you need to go to shared memory or crossbar. Memory speed is a constraint as well, so crossbar has more growth potential until we can make pure optical decisions. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62229t=62166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QoS - Migration Path from MC3810 and 7000 Routers [7:62230]
I am in need of any suggestions/comments on the following migration path. Currently 7000 Router in the Core over 30 Frame PVC to remote sites with MC3810. Running only data right now, but deploying VoIP with Avaya ECLIPS solution. I would like to stay with Cisco Routers and MC3810 will be end of life soon if not already and 7000 as well. In the future ATM will replace the entire frame-relay cloud. There will be about 1000 IP phones deloyed. I need good QoS and scalable solution for future ATM migration. I am thinking 7600 series in the Core and either or 2600 on the edge. Any comments would be appreciated. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62230t=62230 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TTCP support for 2500 platforms [7:62117]
I am running ios ver 12.1.17 on my 2500 and it supports TTCP. TTCP also available on MSFC1/MSFC2. Han. --- MADMAN wrote: It's also supported on the 7500 and 7200 series routers. Dave Brad wrote: I have not been able to find it on ANY platform other than the 12000 and 1, regardless of IOS version. I know Cisco tech docs state it is on all IOS versions 12.0 or newer but I have not found that to be the case. Let me know if you find out different. Brad Petru Stefan wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Hello, Does anyone know a ios for 2500 that contain support for ttcp.I've already tried the 12.0 ip plus but is not there. Regards Stefan -- 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 [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=7i=62231t=62117 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: wireless [7:62104]
Try http://www.80211planet.com/ Good tutorials and a great starting point. /JS Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62232t=62104 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
