RE: Syslog server [7:65217]

2003-03-12 Thread Orlando, Jr. Palomar
You might want to give Kiwi Syslog a spin. It's free.

http://www.kiwisyslog.com/


Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65223t=65217
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: Layer 3 Switches Vs Routers [7:65215]

2003-03-12 Thread Orlando, Jr. Palomar
Without consulting any documentation, a couple of reasons I could think of
is forwarding rate and the switch-fabric (or the size of the backplane,
usually in Gbps). A full-fledged Layer-3 switch running at wire-speed
would be much more efficient in routing (and switching) between VLANs
compared to a router.

Another point of comparison is port density. You can only have such and such
number of ethernet, fastethernet, or maybe even gigabit ethernet ports on a
router before the cost becomes quite prohibitive.

Oh sure, you can use the router-on-a-stick method. And though it is a good
Cisco IOS feature, it was meant to be an interim solution when transitioning
from a flat to a segmented network.

Anyway, if you only have a relatively small network, say 2 VLANs, you can
opt for the router-on-a-stick method. Or better yet, use a router with
dual ethernets or fastethernets. However, if you're supporting 4,5, or more
networks, that's what L-3 and multi-layer switches are for.


Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65221t=65215
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: IP packets unroutable???? [7:65250]

2003-03-12 Thread Orlando, Jr. Palomar
Maybe if you include the running-config, forum members may be able to help.


Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65252t=65250
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: Clock rate 64000 = Bandwidth 64000 - ? [7:64147]

2003-03-01 Thread Orlando, Jr. Palomar
Yes, in order for OSPF or EIGRP to have a more precise computation of costs
and metrics, you should match the bandwidth with the port speed. However, if
this is frame relay, you may want to match the bandwidth with the link's CIR.


Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=64154t=64147
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: Networking problem [7:64012]

2003-03-01 Thread Orlando, Jr. Palomar
Adeboye Onifade wrote:
 Server.
 The
 server is a Pentium 3, 128MB changed to 256, it's also on full
 duplex on the switch/ hubs etc could anyone advise on how
 to make the server more efficient!

You can't configure full-duplex when connecting to a hub. Probably explains
the problems you're having.



Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=64155t=64012
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: two 1900 catalyst switches cannot exchange VLA [7:63937]

2003-03-01 Thread Orlando, Jr. Palomar
I presume you've configured one of them as a vtp server, while the other as
a vtp client? Likewise, they should both have the same vtp domain name.


Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=64156t=63937
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: Scheduling Timed FTP [7:63886]

2003-03-01 Thread Orlando, Jr. Palomar
You can use the time-range command together with an access-list and Modular
QoS CLI (MQC) to accomplish this.


Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=64157t=63886
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: DOES MED TRAVEL IN I-BGP?? [7:63884]

2003-03-01 Thread Orlando, Jr. Palomar
MED is propagated throughout the iBGP peers.


Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=64189t=63884
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: Eigrp summary route with administrative cost 5 - c [7:64104]

2003-02-28 Thread Orlando, Jr. Palomar
The administrative distance of 5 is only significant on the local router
(R1) where you entered the summary-address eigrp command. The admin distance
is not included when advertising routes to other routers (R2).

If you do a sh ip route 111.0.0.0 on R1, you'll see that it is a summary
route and does indeed have an admin distance of 5. This is only locally
significant to R1.

I hope this helps.

OrlyP


Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=64124t=64104
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: Catalyst 1900 Enterprise Software [7:64122]

2003-02-28 Thread Orlando, Jr. Palomar
Go here:

http://www.cisco.com/kobayashi/sw-center/lan/cat1900.shtml

You should have a CCO account.


Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=64126t=64122
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Some multicasting... [7:64130]

2003-02-28 Thread Orlando, Jr. Palomar
Some riddles I need asnwers to:

I have two routers, R1 and R2 that are connected back-to-back through their
serial ports. They have the following basic config:

R1:
ip multicast-routing
!
int e0
ip add 192.168.100.1 255.255.255.0
ip pim dense-mode
ip igmp join-group 224.1.1.1
!
int s0
ip add 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.252
clock rate 64000
!
router rip
net 192.168.100.0
net 192.168.0.0


R2:
int e0
ip add 192.168.200.1 255.255.255.0
!
int s0
ip add 192.168.0.2 255.255.255.252
!
router rip
net 192.168.200.0
net 192.168.0.0


Basically, I'm experimenting with the idea of having multicast users on R2's
LAN to access some multicast source on R1's LAN. The condition is, R2 is
not multicast-ready or is not capable of multicasting. In effect, you
can't enable ip multicast-routing on R2.

Can this work? What other configs should I add?

Thanks,
OrlyP


Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=64130t=64130
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]