[c-nsp] loop guard still useful?

[Lee]

I just saw this bit about RSTP detecting unidirectional links:

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12-2SX/configuration/guide/book/spantree.html#wp1098785

  Detecting Unidirectional Link Failure

  Using the dispute mechanism included in the IEEE 802.1D-2004 RSTP
standard, the switch checks the consistency of the port role and state
in the received BPDUs to detect unidirectional link failures that
could cause bridging loops.

  When a designated port detects a conflict, it keeps its role, but
reverts to a discarding (blocking) state because disrupting
connectivity in case of inconsistency is preferable to opening a
bridging loop.


So I'm wondering if there's any reason to keep loop guard configured
on a switch?
Any current hardware that doesn't support rapidSTP?  Some other reason??

Thanks,
Lee
___
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] SUP-2T and Cisco 6513

[Paul]

Eehehe, yeah forgot about that one 6724 module which has the single 
fabric connection.



On 1/15/2016 6:10 PM, Pete Templin wrote:
Almost. 6724s (SFP or GE) will work in slots 1-8; they only use one 
fabric connection.


On 1/14/2016 5:18 PM, Paul wrote:
You are correct with the sup720, the 67xx line cards are only 
supported in slots 9-13.


On 1/13/2016 6:58 AM, Alireza Soltanian wrote:

Hi everybody

We are planning for installing Cisco 6513. Based on my researches, 
if we
install SUP-2T on this Chassis we will have 80Gbps Fabric Switch 
capacity
(Half-duplex) for each slot. But if we use SUP-720 then we will have 
20Gbps

Fabric Switch capacity for Slots#1-6 and 40Gbps for slots#9-13.





--
GloboTech Communications
Phone: 1-514-907-0050 x 215
Toll Free: 1-(888)-GTCOMM1
Fax: 1-(514)-907-0750
p...@gtcomm.net
http://www.gtcomm.net

___
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] ASR920 "console" port....ugh

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 02:04:25AM +, Erik Sundberg wrote:
> Nah... The next model will be console via bluetooth.

Which would be nice, if it did not require a proprietary client app that
only works on Windows 7, and only with a particular bluetooth chip that
is out of production.

(Besides that, using Airconsole over BT is actually quite nice :-) )

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
   //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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] ASR920 "console" port....ugh

[Saku Ytti]

On 17 January 2016 at 04:04, Erik Sundberg  wrote:

> Nah... The next model will be console via bluetooth.

I would hope people include in their RFPs true OOB as requirement. I
think only one in networking market doing that is Cisco in their
products with CMP. So Nexus7k RP1, SUP2T, RSP880?

Ethernet or RS232 on control-plane really isn't an OOB port at all, as
it fate-shares the same hardware and software, IOS dead, RS232 dead.
Of course on RS232 you at least can send break signal, to start
executing rommon and boot the box from there. But my understanding is
that virtually no one uses this feature for some reason, and indeed it
does not work in IOS-XR 9k today at all.
It seems people are content with Nike and Corolla OOB.

-- 
  ++ytti
___
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/