Re: [c-nsp] Sup2T netflow problems
192.168.75.2Am 06/02/14 10:41, schrieb Peter Rathlev: On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 14:28 +0200, Henri Grönroos wrote: I think you are encountering CSCui17732 which is present in 15.1.2-SY1 too. Thank you for the pointer! According to the bug toolkit the 15.0SY versions are not affected. Can anybody confirm this? Unfortunately this bug is present in *all* Sup2T firmware releases so far. I've seen it in 12.2, 15.0 and 15.1 images. Downgrading to 15.0(1)SY5 would probably be okay for us. The few 15.1SY specific features we've started using are not critical (LDP/IGP sync, pw signalling). Any really good reason not to downgrade to 15.0SY? Yep, because that bug is also present in 15.0SY5. Actually there is *no* officially released firmware that has the bugfix yet as far as I know. The good thing is it usually only happens after a few weeks/months of uptime and only if you have NF export running. If you desperately need it, you should contact your SE to get a special image. Regards, Chris ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] Some basic vPC questions (nexus 3000)
Greetings, We are purchasing two Nexus 3000 switches to aggregate some 48 port 1G switches and plan on using vPC for redundancy. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps11541/white_paper_c11-685753.html When I was reading the vPC whitepaper (referenced above) for the Nexus 3000 it mentions two different types of vPC link: #1 The vPC peer keepalive link (whitepaper suggests that this traffic can run over the mgmt. interface) #2 The vPC peer link (needs to be at least two 10G ports in a port channel) My questions are What happens to the traffic if the vPC peer keep alive communication fails between the two vPC members? Depending on the answer to the question above, is it possible to make the vPC peer keepalive link redundant? Can you add more members to the vPC peer link port channel without disrupting traffic flow? Has anyone run into any unexpected caveats or amusing issues with vPC that they would like to share? Thanks and happy Friday! -Drew ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] understanding BFD echo mode
Hi Martin, Exactly. Both modes (control echo) are used when using the echo mode. The hardware handled echo packets are not eligible to remote cpu fluctuations because of the fact that we use the actual remote forwarding router mechanism. So you have more reliable and fast failure detection with echo mode. Farther, because with echo mode you actually use control (or asycnhronous) mode also, you may configure the slow timer to slow down the probable reaction of the control bfd packets and the cpu load that these packets intoduce. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/datacenter/sw/6_x/nx-os/interfaces/ configuration/guide/if_bfd.pdf page 3 Dimitris -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Martin T Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2014 8:46 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] understanding BFD echo mode Hi, some Cisco routers support BFD in echo mode. Am I correct that BFD echo packets are send besides BFD control messages once echo mode is enabled and Cisco routers are able to handle former in hardware while BFD control messages are punted? regards, Martin ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Some basic vPC questions (nexus 3000)
Hi Drew, please see inline below: At 07:50 AM 2/7/2014 Friday, Drew Weaver remarked: Greetings, We are purchasing two Nexus 3000 switches to aggregate some 48 port 1G switches and plan on using vPC for redundancy. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps11541/white_paper_c11-685753.html When I was reading the vPC whitepaper (referenced above) for the Nexus 3000 it mentions two different types of vPC link: #1 The vPC peer keepalive link (whitepaper suggests that this traffic can run over the mgmt. interface) #2 The vPC peer link (needs to be at least two 10G ports in a port channel) My questions are What happens to the traffic if the vPC peer keep alive communication fails between the two vPC members? Nothing. You are of course alerted to that fact, but loss of bidirectional PKA communication does not impact data plane forwarding. Depending on the answer to the question above, is it possible to make the vPC peer keepalive link redundant? You can, yes, it can be a port-channel for example. Can you add more members to the vPC peer link port channel without disrupting traffic flow? There is potential for some disruption when you add/remove links from a port-channel, as hash buckets are shuffled around. Has anyone run into any unexpected caveats or amusing issues with vPC that they would like to share? I yield the floor... ;) Hope that helps, Tim Thanks and happy Friday! -Drew ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ Tim Stevenson, tstev...@cisco.com Routing Switching CCIE #5561 Distinguished Technical Marketing Engineer, Cisco Nexus 7000 Cisco - http://www.cisco.com IP Phone: 408-526-6759 The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential* and are intended for the specified recipients only. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] vc ipv6 dhcp ssm packet
Hi all. We are having a problem with Windows DHCPv6 SSM multicast packets on our network. We aren't running ipv6 or multicast, so all SSM packets are sent to the processor on the 6500 which is a sup720-3B with a pfc3b cards This makes the load on the cpu very high. We are running s72033-ipservicesk9_wan-mz.122-18.SXF13.bin on one box and s72033-adventerprisek9_wan-mz.122-33.SXJ2.bin on the other. Can someone give me a hint how to get around this. /Arne ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
