Re: [c-nsp] 10G Routing/Forwarding
I configured a couple. They are fixed-config 4500s, so at 4500 feature set is what I expected. That was also what I found. -A -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: 20. december 2012 23:33 To: stasm Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 10G Routing/Forwarding Yeah, the 4500-X looks quite good. Alas, it seems to be a bit hard to actually *get* one - our suppliers quote 6-8 weeks which usually means we might eventually get some next year. Has anyone of you actually laid hands on one, and gained some experience, like what is missing in L3 features that you wanted to have? gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ___ 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] global.xls?
Do you buy direct? Aren't prices available to direct customers? If you buy through a partner, the partner can set you up for access to prices. -A -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: 18. juli 2012 22:08 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] global.xls? snip It was much better when this information used to be available easily. Please fix this, Cisco. You didn't need to break it in the first place. Nick ___ 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] global.xls?
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:39:51 +0100, you wrote: Can't buy direct in IE unless you're enormous. Same here in DK. If you buy through a partner, the partner can set you up for access to prices. Have tried that with previous partner, to no avail. Must try again and see if I can get anywhere with it. If they go to the PICA Admin Tool, they can create a PICA account for you, and you can then associate your Cisco.com account with that PICA account and will get access to prices. http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/front.x/pica/pica_admin_tool.pl -A ___ 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] global.xls?
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:22:10 -0400, you wrote: I assume you're talking about the global price list. If you've got the right CCO privileges, you can download it. It's updated daily. I think you need 'reseller' or 'buys direct from Cisco' status to get access. A partner can provide access to prices for customers through the PICA (Partner Initiated Customer Access) system. -A ___ 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] 7600 w/ WS-SUP720-3B IOS 15.x
Does any of you already heard about the successor of the RSP720 for the 7600 ? I don't think it would make a lot of sense, and I don't think we'll ever see one. If they rebrand the Sup2T as RSP2T, they would have close to no supported line cards (only 67xx without DFCs) and, specifically, all of the high-functionality line cards (ES+) wouldn't be supported. Yes, they could support 68xx and 69xx and spin new ES cards (ES++), but that would be fairly expensive. And for what purpose? If you have a 7600 and you need to replace everything but the chassis and PSUs to upgrade to higher speeds, does it make sense to do so, when there's already the ASR 9000 available? A much better router at presumably approx. the same production cost as a 7600 full of ES+. In my opinion, no. What they *could* easily do is support the 7600 chassis in the Catalyst 6500 software 15.0 SY. That I think they might, and there's kind of a poetic justice in it if they do, because everything would then be back to square one. Maybe, just because of that, they won't: It would look like they made a mistake when they split the two products ;-) (Hi Gert!) -A ___ 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] 7600 w/ WS-SUP720-3B IOS 15.x
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 11:00:40 +0200, you wrote: Numer of trains is limited, development is more focused, and the code reuse is progressing. 12.2SX next, please :-) That's 15.0 SY Well, I was asking for SX-for-6500 (SXI, SXJ), not whatever else might be using an IOS called 12.2SX. 15.0 SY *is* for the 6500. Now, wether it'll also be there for the Sup32 or '720 (both of which are End-of-X) is another story, and maybe the jury is still out on that. But, again, 15.0 SY *is* the 15.0 train for the 6500 family. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps11845/ http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/15.0SY/release_notes.html -A ___ 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] 7600 w/ WS-SUP720-3B IOS 15.x
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:10:26PM +0200, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote: Numer of trains is limited, development is more focused, and the code reuse is progressing. 12.2SX next, please :-) That's 15.0 SY -A ___ 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] ASR9000/RSP440 Console Issue
I think they have: Cloud Services Router 1000v... I do wonder if that's just the Nexus 1000v with all the Procket code... No, it's IOS XE as a VM. -A ___ 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] ASR9000/RSP440 Console Issue
Just heard that Nexus7k SUP2 does not have CMP. According to Ron Fuller and Tim Stevenson customers didn't need it. Here I was hoping we'd finally start getting OOB for routers and switches. You still get true OoB management on the N7K Sup2, just not the CMP interface. From the top of my head, the only situation where the CMP is useful is when the CP is dead, but then you most likely will want to reload the sup anyway, and that can be done from the second sup. That being said, the CMP can't have added much cost to the sup, so since there are (corner) use cases where it makes sense, it's still kind of strange that they've dropped it. -A ___ 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] Nexus 7000 and 6.x
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:33:32 -0500, you wrote: Anyone out there running the 6.x train on the 7k?? We need some features that are available in 6.x, but realize how many additional features that come along with new releases. Our list... BGP EIGRP OTV HSRP VTP VPC Netflow LACP PIM The devil is in the detail. From your list, I'd say 5.2(latest), but you say you need 6.x because of features. What feature haven't you listed? -A ___ 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] Frustration with XR show interface and pipe commands
On Thu, 24 May 2012 08:19:40 -0600, you wrote: Someone asked me how to do something very simple and I'm finding it very difficult! He wants to do a show interface command and show only lines with up or rate in it. Put your regex in quotes: sh int | i up|rate -A ___ 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] Cisco Nexus 5548UP w/Fibre Channel
On Thu, 24 May 2012 20:30:40 +, you wrote: I'm wondering if anyone has any experience/tips/advice when running Fibre Channel on the Nexus 5548UP platform. Yeah, we have customers doing that and do that ourselves. I've done a little bit of research, and understand that the FC ports have to start at the back end of the chassis, and that to switch a port from Ethernet mode over to FC mode, you need to reload the whole switch. Yeah, currently the ports have to be contiguous, and with FC at the high end. If you use a module, you don't have to reload the whole switch when changing the configuration. You can just reset the module. When running FCoE, you don't have to reset/reload anything. To me, FC and FCoE on the N5000s is pretty mature and absolutely production ready. -A ___ 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] 4500-E EOL?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but weren't these released in 2010? Nah. They are 5-6 years old IIRC. Are you sure? The only release bulletin I could find was from 2010 and that's the year the EOS'd the non-E chassis. December 2007: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps4324/prod_bulle tin0900aecd806e1508.html -A ___ 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] 4500-E EOL?
They're dropping support for the redundant (7 and 10 slot) -E chassis for the +E chassis (plus instead of minus). There is no change for the 4503-E and 4506-E. The +E redundant chassis are different primarily in that they support 48G/slot vs the 24G/slot in the older chassis. The -E chassis started shipping in December 2007. -A -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Keegan Holley Sent: 21. maj 2012 04:26 To: Cisco NSPs Subject: [c-nsp] 4500-E EOL? Browsing cisco.com I found EOS/EOL notices for a few of the 4500E chassis. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but weren't these released in 2010? http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps4324/eol_c51-70 6059.html ___ 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] Long range 10G ethernet?
Peter, A Cisco-branded 10Gbase-ZR X2 actually has a power budget of (at least) 24 dBm @ 1550 nm[1]. Get the fiber cleaned, re-spliced as you suggest, and (re-)tested (to also check for dispersion). It's likely to work just fine. I have a couple of customers running 'grey' links at significantly more than 24 dB, and while that's not something I'd normally suggest or consider best practice, there really is a pretty good chance that it'll work just fine. [1] http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/modules/ps5455/ps6574/product_dat a_sheet0900aecd801f92aa.html -A PS: Be careful if testing them in a lab. You *will* toast them if not using attenuators. -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Peter Rathlev Sent: 16. maj 2012 11:19 To: cisco-nsp Subject: [c-nsp] Long range 10G ethernet? (On 6500/Sup720 and with LAN cards) We're currently using a gigabit link with a total loss of 24.1dB (at 1510 nm) from end to end. We're using some third party 120 Km transceivers, and this is working well. Now we're thinking about making it a 10G link instead. Finding 10G transceivers capable of supporting at least ~24-25dB seems tricky though. Googling a bit reveals something like the Optospan SPP-81D-K080T31, rated for 25dB at 1310nm. Of course we're primarily using X2 transceivers, and that one is an SFP+. [snip] ___ 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] OSPFv3 in a VRF on a 7600
Actually, the 7600 is in the ERBU, which also has the 9K, 10K, and 12K. So, no BU cooperation needed ;-) -A -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: 10. april 2012 16:54 To: Aaron Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] OSPFv3 in a VRF on a 7600 Hi, On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:27:41AM -0500, Aaron wrote: Does anyone know if this and other things are slow to be or possibly will not be supported as an agenda within cisco to cause folks to upgrade to ASR9K-type platforms from older 7600 ? Nah, that would assume cooperation between BUs, and the 7600 BU doesn't cooperate with anyone. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ___ 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] OTV on-a-stick
You might be able to make that work in the lab, at least with 'switch trunk allow' so that you don't bridge between the internal interfaces, and if you make sure that you didn't have overlapping VLAN numbers to extend. But I wouldn't consider it best practice. The OTV VDC needs a site VLAN, which would exist on one of the L2 interfaces, but not both, thus making OTV functionality for one 'client' VDC dependent on the life of the other. Not really where I'd want to go. If you used a separate physical interface for the site VLAN, it would make slightly more sense, but you'd still want to be careful with which interfaces were allowed on the insite, and not to overlap them in the overlay... and it's not likely to be solution tested and supported from Cisco, I would think, which means that you should do a lot more testing yourself. -A -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Antonio Soares Sent: 14. maj 2012 12:15 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] OTV on-a-stick Guys, any comments to this OTV on-a-stick question ? Thanks. Regards, Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP) amsoa...@netcabo.pt http://www.ccie18473.net -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Antonio Soares Sent: quinta-feira, 10 de Maio de 2012 19:09 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] OTV on-a-stick Hello group, Anyone knows if having more than one Routing VDC is a supported deployment ? Basically I want OTV on-a-stick like we have bellow but I want another VDC to make use of the OTV VDC: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/solutions/Enterprise/Data_Center/DCI/whitepa per/DCI_1.html#wp1215970 So I would need to create a second Internal Interface connected to the new Routing VDC and use the existing Join Interface connected to the already in place Routing VDC. Does it work ? In terms of configuration, it should be something like this: interface Overlay0 otv join-interface ethernet1/1 interface Ethernet1/1 description Layer-3-to-Routing-VDC-1 (join interface) interface Ethernet1/2 description Layer2-to-Routing-VDC-1 (internal interface) switchport interface Ethernet1/3 description Layer2-to-Routing-VDC-2 (internal interface) switchport Thanks. Regards, Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP) amsoa...@netcabo.pt http://www.ccie18473.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/ ___ 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] RHI with Nexus7K
AFAIK, RHI is currently supported only in the 6500. If the 6500 has a Layer 3 interface into the VLAN, you can do RHI. -A -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of henrry huaman Sent: 11. maj 2012 21:02 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] RHI with Nexus7K Hi all! I´m looking for a functionality like a RHI between ACE and Nexus7K. Currently We have 2 DCs sending the same VIP and the topology is: ServersACE(6500 L2)-N7K (OSPF) The ACE is working in mode L3 is there a feature similar to RHI? Thanks! Henry ___ 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] OTV on-a-stick
If using a single OTV VDC to connect two 'client' (DCI) VDCs over the core, I would connect the OTV VDC to the core, not back to one of the 'client' VDCs, again because it creates a dependency between the 'client' VDCs. (If VDC 1 is down, and VDC 1 does L3 and/or site VLAN for OTV, then VDC 2 DCI will be down as well). (The OTV VDC can only have a single join interface). -A -Original Message- From: Antonio Soares [mailto:amsoa...@netcabo.pt] Sent: 15. maj 2012 18:32 To: 'Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists' Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: RE: [c-nsp] OTV on-a-stick Thanks for the feedback, in fact we won't deploy this in any production network without having Cisco saying it works and it's supported :) The idea is to extend the concept. We have this: VDC1===Layer 2 (VLANs 100,101,...)===OTV===Layer 3===VDC1---Layer 3 to remote DC And we want to add this: VDC2===Layer 2 (VLANs 200,201,...)===OTV In the case we have overlapping Vlans, the option would be the creation of a second OTV VDC: VDC1===Layer 2 (VLANs 100,101,...)===OTV 1===Layer 3===VDC1---Layer 3 to remote DC VDC2===Layer 2 (VLANs 100,101,...)===OTV 2=== ??? Above I don't know if we can configure the Join interface to the same VDC1 or if we need to do it to VDC2. Then since VDC1 is the VDC that connects to the other DC, we would need a L3 connection between VDC2 and VDC1. I've come across these 4 scenarios: http://ccie18473.net/otv-on-a-stick-3.jpg Scenario 1 is what I want. Scenario 3 is for situations with overlapping Vlans. Scenarios 2 and 4, I thought initially that the Internal and Join interfaces should connect to the same VDC, maybe this is not necessary at all. Regards, Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP) amsoa...@netcabo.pt http://www.ccie18473.net -Original Message- From: Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists [mailto:li...@hojmark.org] Sent: terça-feira, 15 de Maio de 2012 15:59 To: 'Antonio Soares' Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: RE: [c-nsp] OTV on-a-stick You might be able to make that work in the lab, at least with 'switch trunk allow' so that you don't bridge between the internal interfaces, and if you make sure that you didn't have overlapping VLAN numbers to extend. But I wouldn't consider it best practice. The OTV VDC needs a site VLAN, which would exist on one of the L2 interfaces, but not both, thus making OTV functionality for one 'client' VDC dependent on the life of the other. Not really where I'd want to go. If you used a separate physical interface for the site VLAN, it would make slightly more sense, but you'd still want to be careful with which interfaces were allowed on the insite, and not to overlap them in the overlay... and it's not likely to be solution tested and supported from Cisco, I would think, which means that you should do a lot more testing yourself. -A -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Antonio Soares Sent: 14. maj 2012 12:15 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] OTV on-a-stick Guys, any comments to this OTV on-a-stick question ? Thanks. Regards, Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP) amsoa...@netcabo.pt http://www.ccie18473.net -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Antonio Soares Sent: quinta-feira, 10 de Maio de 2012 19:09 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] OTV on-a-stick Hello group, Anyone knows if having more than one Routing VDC is a supported deployment ? Basically I want OTV on-a-stick like we have bellow but I want another VDC to make use of the OTV VDC: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/solutions/Enterprise/Data_Center/DCI/whitepa per/DCI_1.html#wp1215970 So I would need to create a second Internal Interface connected to the new Routing VDC and use the existing Join Interface connected to the already in place Routing VDC. Does it work ? In terms of configuration, it should be something like this: interface Overlay0 otv join-interface ethernet1/1 interface Ethernet1/1 description Layer-3-to-Routing-VDC-1 (join interface) interface Ethernet1/2 description Layer2-to-Routing-VDC-1 (internal interface) switchport interface Ethernet1/3 description Layer2-to-Routing-VDC-2 (internal interface) switchport Thanks. Regards, Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP) amsoa...@netcabo.pt http://www.ccie18473.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/ ___ 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
Re: [c-nsp] ME3400 GRE
It may be working (but process-switched with poor performance and high CPU) in some versions of code. It's still unsupported. -A From: ar [mailto:ar_...@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:41 AM To: Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists Cc: 'cisco-nsp' Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ME3400 GRE Yeah. Though Im not sure why it's working on the ME-3400G-2CS-A variant. _ From: Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists mailto:li...@hojmark.org li...@hojmark.org To: 'ar' mailto:ar_...@yahoo.com ar_...@yahoo.com Cc: 'cisco-nsp' mailto:cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:20 PM Subject: RE: [c-nsp] ME3400 GRE I am using GRE on ME3400 with my Core 7600. ... Any known issue with ME3400 metroipaccess IOS? GRE (or any other tunnel type) is unsupported on the ME 3400, regardless of the IOS feature set. Unsupported Global Configuration Commands interface tunnel http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/metro/me3400/software/release/12.2 _ http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/metro/me3400/software/release/12.2_ 58_se/configuration/guide/swuncli.html -A ___ 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] 12.2(33)SRE5 real-world opinions
I'm looking to upgrade from SRC4 to SRE5 and I'm wondering if there are any gotchas, hiccups or non-public bugs that anyone might have experience with. IMO, you should be looking at 15.0 S. It's going to have longer life than SRE. (Yes, do a bug scrub. Yes, test it.) -A ___ 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] ME3400 GRE
I am using GRE on ME3400 with my Core 7600. ... Any known issue with ME3400 metroipaccess IOS? GRE (or any other tunnel type) is unsupported on the ME 3400, regardless of the IOS feature set. Unsupported Global Configuration Commands interface tunnel http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/metro/me3400/software/release/12.2_ 58_se/configuration/guide/swuncli.html -A ___ 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] private use for 4byte ASN
While IANA may not have allocated anything for private use, 65536-65551 are reserved for documentation, and those are of cause 32-bit numbers. http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xml (A separate ASN per site, however, makes little sense to me). -A -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ge Moua Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:04 AM To: Daniel Kratz; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] private use for 4byte ASN Hi David K- Your the second person who's told me that; thanks. For a large organization with a few thousand branch sites (using BGP for internal inter-connectivity and without the need to advertise the AS_Path to the pubic Internet), I was thinking it be nice designate a private ASN per site. Of course this count would exceed that of what 2byte / 16 bit ASN would prescribe per RFC-1930. I was hoping that maybe the use of 4byte / 32bit ASN would provide an expanded range of private ASN to meet this requirement. I was hoping to avoid BGP trickery such AS-overide and the like. Thanks again for the feedback. -- Regards, Ge Moua University of Minnesota Alumnus Email: moua0...@umn.edu -- On 2/15/12 5:16 PM, Daniel Kratz wrote: Hi Ge Moua, IANA did not allocate 4bytes AS to private use[1]. Probably they considered that the range between 64512 ~ 65534 from 16bits ASN is enough. The 32bits ASN is easy to get/justify than 16bits ASN... Same thinking is valid to get an IPV6 CIDR. []'s Kratz [1] - IANA Autonomous System Numbers http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xml 2012/2/15 Ge Moua moua0...@umn.edu mailto:moua0...@umn.edu Does anyone know if there is a RFC standard that define private use of (32bit) 4byte ASN? I was hoping that since 4byte ASN allows for a much larger range then the same would be for best-practice use of private ASN as well. -- Regards, Ge Moua moua0...@umn.edu mailto:moua0...@umn.edu -- ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net mailto:cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ -- Any fool can know. The point is to understand. Albert Einstein ___ 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] CCO - Downloads area borked ?
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:51:25 -0500 (EST), you wrote: Getting various server side fails (file not availible, JAMon PageRenderMonitor, etc). Just wanted to see if other folks are having similar issue. Yes, several things, including software downloads, have been totally b0rken for the last several hours. -A ___ 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] 6148 L2 local switching?
In other words, this this card capable of L2 local switching? No. or does every packet go to the sup and back? Yes. -A ___ 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] Nexus 7000 MPLS
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:25:46 -0800, you wrote: I see the Nexus 7000 does MPLS now (perhaps for some time?). Is there anyone out there using MPLS on these and cares to comment about their experience? I'm particularly interested in RSVP, L3VPN support using OSPF as the PE/CE protocol, any scalability issues, possibly some interop w/ Juniper MX, and of course stability. I have done a setup where we do MPLS on N7K in a traditional data center setup (no CEs). IGP is OSPF. Signalling is LDP. Only L3 VPNs. Everything we use Just Works(tm). Performance is excellent. -A ___ 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] Cisco Nexus and HP Flexfabric
Actually, FCoE is Single-Hop by standart. Nonsense, the standards have been done for years. What constitutes a FC hop is an ISL (FCF VE_Port to FCF VE_Port)... and yes that is standardized for FCoE. See FC-BB-5. Also if you already have non-Cisco FC Fabric, using Cisco Extenders should be done with care. Sure, every network design should be done with care. Now please go spread your FUD somewhere else. -A ___ 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] Cisco Nexus and HP Flexfabric
Any experience on the operations side of things for the B22HP route? More specifically, feedback on how TAC (HP and Cisco) would look, day to day provisioning (risk to reloading an B22HP to the rest of the HP Blade?)...etc Support (functionality, troubleshooting) for the fabric extender is through Cisco TAC (via the N5K parent switch). If you need an RMA, that's via HP (as the B22HP is an HP product). If you reload the B22HP (or upgrade it from the parent N5K), the Servers of cause lose connectivity on that fabric. Of cause, if you run both types of traffic on the same network, it hurts to lose that network... But few applications actually benefit from being able to reach the storage when the network is down or vice versa. Plus, you can build the level of redundancy that you want. I think the biggest change may be software upgrades: LAN people often try to keep relatively 'current' with software, while SAN people may be used to installing something and then 'never' touch the software version again. -A ___ 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] Cisco Nexus and HP Flexfabric
Do you know what the limit to vlans on flexfabric is? It depends on the software version, which may be why you see different values different places. The maximum in a FlexFabric module is 320 VLANs with VC 3.18. There are other limits as to the number of VLANs in the VC domain, but that is an it depends value, based on the design. -A ___ 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] Cisco Nexus and HP Flexfabric
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 15:25:10 +0200, you wrote: Well, If you carefully read FC-BB-5 ver. 1.03, you may see that each Enode should be connected to Fibre Channel Forwarder. That is what I mean. Yeah, that's exactly what you get with multi-hop FCoE from Cisco (N5K - N5K or N5K - N7K). So yes, multi-hop FCoE is standardized. You are correct, of cause, that you can't connect a N2K (or B22HP) to 'any switch' or 'any SAN'. You have to connect it to a N5K. But that's like complaining that the standards aren't done when you can't use a Cisco MDS line card in a Brocade switch. (The N2K is, in effect, a line card of the N5K). And that has nothing to do with multi-hop FCoE. My point was this: If you use FlexFabric, you get FCoE from the server to the FlexFabric, but you have to run multiple cables (both Ethernet and FC) from the chassis to the LAN and the SAN. You basically only save the HBA. With N2K (or B22HP), you can use a single cable from the chassis (carrying both LAN and SAN) and save both HBA, cables, and FC ports. -A ___ 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] Cisco Nexus and HP Flexfabric
We have customers running the Nexus B22HP (Cisco/HP FEX) and it works pretty well. Flex-Whatever sucks. Bowling balls through straws. It's a switch, but not a switch. It doesn't do QoS. (Flex-NIC bandwidth-limitations work only in one direction). It doesn't do multi-hop FCoE (no FCoE out of the rack), and thus requires more FC ports = more expensive, it is limited in number of VLANs. Management sucks. Server admins configure networking. From my experience I'd say 1st prio: B22HP - N5500 (limited market exposure, but cool tech) 2nd prio: Pass-Through - N2232 - N5500 ... 5th prio: CBS-3120X - N5500 ... 8th prio: barbed wired ... Cth prio: VC FlexFabric - N5500 ... Fth prio: VC Flex-10 - N5500 Seriously. -A -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Pablo Espinosa Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:10 PM To: cisco-nsp Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco Nexus and HP Flexfabric Actually, I mis-spoke on the HP Flexfabric question. I've been asked to consider the HP Flexfabric product OR the integrated Cisco Nexus 2K within an HP Blade serverIf anyone has deployed either solution, I would love some feedback thanks p- ___ 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] Faster BGP Failover
I agree that it should be default these days (it is in XR NX-OS), Honestly, if you guys were to get into changing the defaults, I think no ip proxy-arp should really be top of the list ;o) That too is off by default in XR and NX-OS. -A ___ 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] Faster BGP Failover
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:51:40 +0200, you wrote: I agree that it should be default these days (it is in XR NX-OS), Honestly, if you guys were to get into changing the defaults, I think no ip proxy-arp should really be top of the list ;o) That too is off by default in XR and NX-OS. For ASR 9000 the doku and my life-configuration says proxy-arp is off by default. Yeah, I meant that proxy ARP is off by default in the modern OSs. -A ___ 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] 3750X stacking with 3750 ??
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:56:28 +, you wrote: Does anybody know that absolute answer, if a 3750X can or cannot stack with a 3750 or 3750E ? Can. If you stack 3750-X with -X og -E, it will run StackWise Plus. If you stack with 3750, it will only run StackWise. See http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps5023/prod_white_paper09186a00801b096a.html -A ___ 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] sup2T software release notes have hit
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:28:46 +0100, you wrote: Well... just because something is easy for Cisco doesn't mean they would do it. They might believe that IOS XE on the ISRs would eat into the market for ASR, so they don't do it. The ISR G2s will Eventually(TM) get IOS-XE too. -A ___ 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] sup2T software release notes have hit
XE is what the rumors told me the Sup2T would be based upon, but IOS versions like 12.2(50)SY very much sound like IOS-trains. It is IOS. Sup2T will have IOS-XE Sometime Later(TM). -A ___ 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] Redistributing certain BGP routes into OSPF
Yes, I have two routers separated by a firewall (which is incapable of running BGP). The two routers exchange routes via eBGP multi-hop without problem. Depending on what exactly you're trying to achieve, you could consider running the ASA transparent and let the two routers peer as they would on any p2p link. That way, routing wouldn't be needed on the ASA. -A ___ 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] asa 8.4 + etherchannel + nexus7k
[ASA] configuration guide cites only vss, not vpc unfortunately. From the ASA point of view, two C6K running VSS and two N7K running vPC both look like a single LACP partner. For the ASA, there's no difference if it's a VSS pair or a vPC pair. -A ___ 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] Fabricpath on Nexus
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:09:56 -0700, you wrote: If it really is only two boxes, FabricPath provides *no* benefits, For one thing you could provide up to 256 10G links between two boxes, something you could not do with STP. OK, 256 x 10G is cool and much more than you can do with link aggregation. But for *two* boxes? only more complexity... FP config is certainly no more complex than STP. What makes you think it's complex? Have you ever configured it? I didn't say it was complex to configure. But I'm sure you'll agree that the technology is more complex than an aggregated link? I was just saying if you only have two boxes (what the OP said), use link aggregation and be done with it. -A ___ 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] Fabricpath on Nexus
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:51:07 +1100, you wrote: If it really is only two boxes, FabricPath provides *no* benefits, only more complexity 1. FabricPath adds no complexity compared to traditional L2 (STP). But with two boxes, you wouldn't need STP... And while there may not be much configuration, the technology is certainly more complex than link aggregation. - you can evolve your network to far more ports active from any path to any other path active/active With two boxes and link aggregation, all ports would be active... - you get a lot more flexibility in the topology you build. You don't need much flexibility in the topology for two boxes... - FabricPath has significant convergence advantages over STP Yeah, but over link aggregation as well? - conversational MAC learning is enabled by default. Would that make any difference for two boxes? there are other benefits too, but thats the high level. I'm certainly not saying FabricPath has no benefits. In fact I think it's awesomely cool and solves very real problems. But I was answering the OP's question on using it for *two* boxes, not judging it in general. -A ___ 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] 3845 maxing out at 400 Mbps
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:14:21 -0500, you wrote: The ACLs are BCP 38-oriented with eBGP; no rate-limiting. We're running 124-11.XW2. You really should look at upgrading that to some more recent and less End-of-X. 12.4 XW also has know vulnerabilities only fixed in later releases. Any ideas? The numbers are well below Cisco's router spec sheet. Actually, the 3800 is positioned for T3/E3 speeds... I consider it quite impressive that you're pushing up to 400 Mbps though them with some features. The spec sheet is best case numbers with no features. *Any* feature that you turn on will negatively affect performance, and the actual performance hit for each feature will also vary with traffic patterns. -A ___ 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] Fabricpath on Nexus
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:37:25 +, you wrote: But I was answering the OP's question on using it for *two* boxes, not judging it in general. I think one consideration may be that you may not always have only two boxes - so why not use FabricPath to begin with, so that expansion/interconnection requires fewer changes? That's a fair point. Another point might be that it's very new code with limited field exposure... and that it's Cisco-only. If it's so easy to configure, surely one can do it, when one need it? -A ___ 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] netflow top-talkers
I would think it's doable with Flexible NetFlow in SRE. Haven't tried, though. -A -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp- boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mack McBride Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 9:54 PM To: Matlock, Kenneth L; Jon Harald Bøvre; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] netflow top-talkers This is also not available in 12.0(33)S5 or S8 on the 12k platform or 12.2(33)SRD1 on the 7600 platform. It is probably better to do this on a netflow capture box than on the supervisor since this is software intensive. Mack McBride Network Architect -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp- boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Matlock, Kenneth L Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 1:36 PM To: Jon Harald Bøvre; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] netflow top-talkers Works just fine on a 6506 Sup720-3B, on SXI5. Ken Matlock Network Analyst Exempla Healthcare (303) 467-4671 matlo...@exempla.org -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp- boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jon Harald Bøvre Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:17 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] netflow top-talkers Hi Same result on our 7609's at SRE3. From command reference: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/netflow/command/reference/nf_01.html#wp1 014717 ip flow-top-talkers To configure NetFlow top talkers to capture traffic statistics for the unaggregated top flows of the heaviest traffic patterns and most-used applications in the network, use the ip flow-top-talkers command in global configuration mode. To disable NetFlow top talkers, use the no form of this command. ip flow-top-talkers no ip flow-top-talkers TipThe ip flow-top-talkers command does not appear in the configuration until you have configured the top number and sort-by [bytes | packets] commands. Router(config)# ip flow-top-talkers Router(config-flow-top-talkers)# top 4 Router(config-flow-top-talkers)# sort-by bytes When I try to configure: 520-060(config)#ip flow-top-talkers ^ % Invalid input detected at '^' marker. Assume this to be a bug Jon h Bøvre On 29.03.2011 19:53, Alexey wrote: Hi, I have updated Cisco IOS c7600rsp72043_rp-ADVENTERPRISEK9-M from version 122-33.SRB4 to 122-33.SRE3 on my Cisco 7600. Аfter update I can't find command RR(config)#ip flow top-talkers, but in the enable mode I can see that: RR#show ip flow top-talkers % Top talkers not configured Is this image supports netflow top-talkers? Thank you for answers. ___ 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/ ___ 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/ ___ 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] New Joiner - ME3600X and tools
IPv6 supported? No. Probably coming in october this year. Last I heard was 'sometime 2012' for IPv6 support -- Totally unacceptable for any device doing L3 in SP environments, IMO -- so I consider it a L2-only box. -A ___ 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] Fabricpath on Nexus
We are considering deploying a pair of Nexus 7010 switches using fabricpath for L2 and HSRP for Layer 3. If it really is only two boxes, FabricPath provides *no* benefits, only more complexity... If you want to use FabricPath for anything useful today, you have to use Nexus 7000 access switches as well, and more than two aggregation switches. -A ___ 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] Sup720, multicast bothers the CPU
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:47:07 +0100, you wrote: Sorry if this is a newbie question, but if one would have a Sup720 RP being overloaded by multicast packets from a connected segment, what should one do? Look at MLS rate limiters, where you can control how much is punted. -A ___ 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] Sup720, multicast bothers the CPU
Look at MLS rate limiters, where you can control how much is punted. The keyword to look for is CoPP (Control Plane Policing). If there are anything but insignificant amounts of multicast, one really should (also) use the MLS rate limiters, which run in the PFC / DFCs and catch cases that CoPP cannot. (See http://bit.ly/fNunEZ and http://bit.ly/R3190). -A ___ 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] What is the lowest latency switch?
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:20:18 -0700, you wrote: speaking for NX-OS, you have all of awk/sed/grep/tr/wc/sort/uniq/diff already available and we've been pretty responsive in adding new types on request... ... and thank you *very much* for that. Highly appreciated! -A ___ 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] What is the lowest switch?
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:02:34 +0900, you wrote: I heard C4900M is low latency switch In almost all real-world scenarios, any dropped frame affects performance almost infinitely more than the latency of any switch between the two hosts. Don't *just* look at latency. That being said: The Nexus 5548 is pretty low latency port-to-port, and has much better density than the 4900M. Also a new Nexus switch is rumoured[1] to be 'just around the corner', specifically targeted at HFT scenarios. You should take this up with the account team. Do you know any other vender? Well, Arista plays in this space. -A [1] Those rumours are easily googlable. ___ 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] Securing OSPFv3 on 6500/7600 Routers?
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:33:04 +0100, you wrote: (Like, BFD for OSPFv3, which *is* in 12.2SR, but not in 12.2SX...) Don't use a LAN platform. LANs don't need BFD :-P -A ___ 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] New ACE30
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:01:31 -, you wrote: If it is a new blade, what does this mean: Migration from Cisco ACE10 or ACE20 to Cisco ACE30 Customers that have an existing Cisco ACE10 or ACE20 Module can migrate to a Cisco ACE30 Module based on a Throughput license purchased with the Cisco ACE10 or ACE20 Module, using one of the three part numbers listed in Table 5. It means you pay them 30 k$ (list) and they send you the corresponding new module and licenses. -A ___ 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] New ACE30
Is this just changing the daughter card? Or is it a completely new blade? It's a new blade (new NPU's) What's the list prices of these updates? 30 k$ -A ___ 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] GLC-LH-SM vs SFP-GE-L
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:41:04 +, you wrote: We have also been using Cisco-coded transceivers for years, and haven't had significantly worse failure rate on those than on optics purchased from Cisco. YMMV. Not surprising really,considering they're probably exactly the same hardware (bar an EEPROM label/value) maybe even from the same factory :-) Some of them are perfectly fine. You can get something from quality brands, which are at least as good as 'Cisco' (but still cheaper)... probably because they are who OEMs the 'Cisco' SFPs. But other pluggables (the Chinese copies?) really are crap, and in my experience if you get something labeled whatever and coded Cisco, it is a lot more likely to be Chinese copy crap than if you get something from a quality brand. But YMMV. -A ___ 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] GLC-LH-SM vs SFP-GE-L
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:05:09 +0100, you wrote: Of course. That just means that Cisco is bound to alienate some subset of their customers. And I can't imagine Cisco doesn't know that their competitors _really_ use this to their advantage. I'm not sure e.g. HP/H3C is better, but boy do they know what irritate Ciscos customers... Ha. I had a customer with HP VirtualConnect Flex-10 and Cisco Nexus 5000, who couldn't use a Cisco cable (DAC) because the VC wouldn't accept it and couldn't use a HP cable because the N5K wouldn't accept it. So ... 'service unsupported' to the rescue. So, I don't see how HP is better when it comes to pluggables. Au contraire. -A PS: And now Cisco even officially support some HP DACs. ___ 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] GLC-LH-SM vs SFP-GE-L
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:37:24 -0600, you wrote: I had a customer with HP VirtualConnect Flex-10 and Cisco Nexus 5000, who couldn't use a Cisco cable (DAC) because the VC wouldn't accept it and couldn't use a HP cable because the N5K wouldn't accept it. So ... 'service unsupported' to the rescue. Was the Cisco-rejected HP cable listed on the Nexus 5000 twinax cable certification support matrix? At that time there was no such matrix or support. -A ___ 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] GLC-LH-SM vs SFP-GE-L
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:21:21 +0100, you wrote: I have some (though not much) sympathy for Cisco's not wanting to support 3rd party transceivers. Hey, they have to feed their kids and all that. But I fail to see why they won't support their own transceivers. That's just plain stupid. Support takes testing Testing takes time Time costs money ... plus, given a finite amount of time, there'll always be prioritization on what to do when. We may not always agree with the priorities, but you shouldn't doubt that they're done. Oh well, we're in talks with a 3rd party provider that deliver optics that work without service unsupported-transceiver at a much lower price and 3 year warranty. The problem with using Cisco-coded transceivers is that it makes it much harder to figure out what's going on. (And yes, lots of those pluggables that appear to work, frequently fails. Been there, seen it many times on support cases). There are companies producing high-quality pluggables (and sell them at a much lower price than Cisco), but there are also lots of cases where you get what you pay for (not very much). If one use something else than Cisco pluggables, one should at least use products from someone who isn't afraid to put their own name on and in the product. -A ___ 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] Cisco ASA 5520 QinQ support
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 10:53:37 +0100, you wrote: I have tried to look up if Cisco ASA 5520 (or any other cisco ASA model) supports QinQ tagged vlans, but been unable to find out if it supports this functionality. It doesn't. -A ___ 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] SXI LAN only images, where did they go?
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:58:45 +0100, you wrote: Maybe not totally relevant to the SP world, but does anybody know why Cisco stopped serving the LAN only images for the Sup720/C6k? They didn't. s72033-ipservicesk9-mz.122-33.SXI5.bin (IP SERVICES SSH LAN ONLY) s72033-ipservicesk9-vz.122-33.SXI5.bin (IP SERVICES SSH LAN ONLY (MODULAR)) are both there. -A ___ 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] Need help with setting up ip multicast routing...correction
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 22:37:32 +0200, you wrote: The 2960 is a L2 switch. It can't do unicast routing either... OT, but actually it can. Just only static unicast routing. Release notes: When you configure the new lanbase-routing SDM template, the switch supports static routing and router ACLs on SVIs. (Catalyst 2960, 2960-S, and 2975) http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst2960/software/release/12.2_55_se/configuration/guide/swipstatrout.html -A ___ 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] Service agreement warning for EOL hardware
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 01:42:22 +0200, you wrote: End of new service attachment - November 2006. You could buy a router in November 2002. Then, four years later you decided it was a last call for extending the life of your network. By either renewing yearly the service contract during the entire lifetime of your 3640, or calling in an inspection from Cisco to check if they can register the new service for gear that is currently not covered by any service, you could then in November 2006 go into 5-years contract to support the box just before the 'last date to order a new service-and-support' was hit. Last Date of Support for the 3640 was November 2007. It is correct that you could extend an existing contract or buy a new one November 2006... but you couldn't do that for 5 years, only 1 because EoL (LDoS) was November 2007. Ref: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps274/prod_eol_notice09186a008032d840.html However, it seems that your problem is not related to the way how Cisco treats it's customers, but to downloading the software from CCO with no valid contract to cover the specific hardware platform :) I agree with the OP that there's no way one could have a valid service contract on a 3640 today. -A ___ 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] ASR1006 Router
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:50:31 -0400, you wrote: I am configuring an ASR1006 with the following SPA cards installed. SPA-10X1GE-V2 SPA-4XT3/E3 Have you read and tried Required Configuration Tasks: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/shared_port_adapters/configuration/ASR1000/asrct3e3.html#wp1072390 ? SPA-8XCHT1/E1 Have you read and tried Required Configuration Tasks: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/shared_port_adapters/configuration/ASR1000/asrcfgt1.html#wp1072390 ? -A ___ 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] End of Support - WS-C3560-XXXX
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:46:29 -0500, you wrote: Any ideas why the Cisco End of Sale/End of Support page (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/prod_end_of_life.html) doesn't show 3560 switches yet my Cisco Contract Center shows 31-Jul-2015 as EOS for WS-C3560-24PS-S, WS-C3560-48PS-S, etc? (not WS-C3560G-24TS though). I guess it just isn't updated: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps5023/end_of_life_notice_c51-574778_ps5528_Products_End-of-Life_Notice.html -A ___ 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] Feedback on upcoming removal of FTP access to secured software
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:13:35 +0100, you wrote: It's also looks like Cisco may be vaguely moving in the direction of locking CCO accounts down to be able to access only software downloads for which there are active smartnet contracts. Active service contracts, yes that's what they're doing. (They have informed us partners). It doesn't have to be SMARTnet contracts, though. -A ___ 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] Multi Area OSPF
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:32:05 +0100, you wrote: The 1812 is set as a stub with no other routing protocols being used. When I use the redistribute static or redistribute connected commands it advises these cant be used as the router is an asbr. The router is only running 1 ospf process for the stub area so I am not sure why this is occurring. Don't redistribute into the area. Just use network statements for the connected networks that you want the router to advertise into the area. If you need to redistribute something into the area (including static routes), you're using the wrong area type. -A ___ 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] Cisco 7609, LR Transceiver for Short Distance Connection
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:12:37 +0200, you wrote: He should actually be ok even with ER and no attenuators as minimum transmit power is -4.7 dBm and max receive power is -1 dBm (per cisco site). Just check optical power levels and see if they are in limits. Uhm, no. *Maximum* transmit power is 4 dBm and max receive is -1 dBm, so an attenuator is certainly highly recommended for short distances. -A ___ 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] Cisco 7609, LR Transceiver for Short Distance Connection
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 10:02:46 +0200, you wrote: *Maximum* transmit power is 4 dBm and max receive is -1 dBm, so an attenuator is certainly highly recommended for short distances. Yes, but it won't be transmitting max power for sure. No... it might be transmitting with only 2, or even 0 dBm, but that's still too much. All I'm saying that it will work even without attenuators. Yeah, you're likely to get a link. That's certainly not the same thing as it being a recommended setup for production. He can always check power levels and see if there is a need for an attenuator. You are aware that the power levels can and do change? The attenuator might be 1$, so why bother trying to run something out of spec? -A ___ 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] Cisco 7609, LR Transceiver for Short Distance Connection
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 10:46:29 -0500, you wrote: *Maximum* transmit power is 4 dBm and max receive is -1 dBm, so an attenuator is certainly highly recommended for short distances. Minimum cabling distance for -LR, -SR, -LX4, -ER modules is 2m, according to the IEEE 802.3ae standard And? -A ___ 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] Cat6500 modular IOS - direction?
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:50:21 +0200, you wrote: If I were a competitor, my worst nightmare might be Cisco gets their operating system act together, and delivers a stable, modular, cross- platform OS *for all their existing product lines*. CRS-3 and Cisco 500 routers, Nexus 7000 and SFE 1000P switches, and a UCS-B blade system all running the same code. No thank you, I do not want to be waiting for a new feature release with PIC Edge, which is delayed because of a bug in the UPnP or USB printer code. You'll quickly see that Cisco's vast range of products can be and has to be grouped in several 'similar products that need the same category of features' (and hence OS's)... and it looks to me that's actually exactly what Cisco is working on. Core : IOS XR Edge : IOS XE Access: IOS (classic) DC: NX-OS (And others, because e.g. a Flip camera does not need routing) Of cause when you *do* start grouping products, some people will want hardware A with software Z, but it might be running X. Tough luck. -A ___ 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] Jumbo Frames Support on Datacenter Switches
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:17:18 +, you wrote: The 4500 series switches are not comparable to the 4900 switches. I find that comment a bit funny. The Catalyst 4900 switches *are* in all practical sense Catalyst 4500 switches. 4928 = 4500/SupV 4948 = 4500/SupV 4948-10G = 4500/SupV-10G 4948E-10G = 4500/Sup6-E 4900M = 4500/Sup6-E 4900 series are targeted for datacenter use; 4500 is not. Yes, the 4900s have more line rate ports (and that *is* important in the DC), but that's mainly because they have fewer of them. -A ___ 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] Forwarding bandwidth vs. Switching bandwidth
It's really quite simple: 48x1G downlinks + 2x10G uplinks + 2x10G stacking = 88G non-blocking 88G x marketing = 176G -A ___ 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] Multicast issues on 7600s with WS-6748-sfp blades
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:29:18 -0400, you wrote: I have seen some pretty low level problems with multicast packets being dropped on the floor by the hardware forwarded on 67xx linecards. The bug seems to appear when changes that effect the asic (turning on mls qos for example). Resetting the sup engine doesn't resolve it. Everything looks good at the CEF/mfib level, and all counters show the packet count increasing, but the packets never get forwarded out of the linecard. Sounds a bit like CSCtc24959, which I saw with a couple of customers. It was typically seen on changes to topology (i.e. rerouting). Flipping the replication mode: mls ip multicast replication-mode ingress no mls ip multicast replication-mode ingress [1] causes reprogramming of the hardware, which fixed the problem without having to reset the whole blade. Note that it *is* traffic-affecting for all active multicast flows. CSCtc24959 is fixed in SRD4 and will not be integrated in earlier releases, or so I was told. HTH, -A [1] Or the other way round if you use ingress replication ___ 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] L2VPN with IP address
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:40:17 +1200, you wrote: I could get a xconnect going between one of the bigger boxes and the small PE, without actually wasting port on the bigger router (by having some sort of logical interface) then I could run the BGP session directly. I had a look on Cisco website, but either it's not possible or that kind of bridging has a special name that I can't pin down. If you've heard of such feature - please let me know. You can do that with 'routed pseudowires' on 7600 with ES+ http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2sr/release/notes/122SRrn.html#wp3970796 -A ___ 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] 6500/Sup720 losing startup-config
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:53:48 +0200, you wrote: It smells like a battery of some kind run dry, combined with the NVRAM not being flash based. Anybody have a clue about what I could do? Other than have it replaced? :-) The solution *is* to have it RMA'ed. I just had a similar case on a 7600. The SR software is polite enough to actually write that the battery is low, logging C7600_PLATFORM-3-LOW_BATT. -A ___ 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] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:12:50 +0200, you wrote: If you want to stick with Cisco, do they have any similar products with larger buffers? I.e 24 or 48 1000base-T and some SFP/SFP+ uplink ports? Look at Catalyst 4948E: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10947/ -A ___ 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] RSP720-3C-10GE with daughter card = RSP720-3CXL-10GE?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:41:06 +0400 (MSD), you wrote: You can do it if you have the PFC3CXL card (available as spare for 6500 Sups), it was never productized however. I couldn't find it in GPL. VS-F6K-PFC3CXL= is Catalyst 6500 Sup720-10G Policy Feature Card 3CXL -A ___ 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] RSP720-3C-10GE with daughter card = RSP720-3CXL-10GE?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:45:13 +0400 (MSD), you wrote: VS-F6K-PFC3CXL= is Catalyst 6500 Sup720-10G Policy Feature Card 3CXL It's for SUP720.. We have RSP720-3C.. 1) You wrote that there is no official upgrade for the RSP 2) ?ukasz wrote that you could upgrade with the PFC3CXL upgrade, which is available as a product for the 6500 3) You wrote that you couldn't find it in the GPL 4) I then sent the product ID for the product that exists, not the product that doesn't exist. I know you have an RSP. -A ___ 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] BGP Hybrid CLI - NLRI format to AFI
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:51:12 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: I have to convert to AFI for IPv6, will my IPv4 BGP session drop when I do the conversion bgp upgrade-cli ? No. (Yes, I've done that many times). -A ___ 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] OSPF for Routed Access -- OSPF in IP Base on 3650/3750?
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:55:41 -0500, you wrote: Just spotted a feature called OSPF for Routed Access in the 6500 SXI4 release notes, which seems to indicate that single-area OSPF support is coming to IP Base IOS images. OSPF for Routed Access is not limited to a single area. You can find the limitations in e.g. the Catalyst 4500 Release Notes (Sup6 only): OSPF for Routed Access supports only one OSPFv2 and one OSPFv3 instance with a maximum number of 200 dynamically learned routes. (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst4500/release/note/OL_5184.html) I wasn't able to find any information regarding this feature in the 3750/3650 release notes for 12.2.(53)SE -- OSPF for Routed Access is not (yet) supported for those switches. Contact your account team for more information. -A ___ 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] OSPF for Routed Access -- OSPF in IP Base on 3650/3750?
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:50:30 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: OSPF for Routed Access supports only one OSPFv2 and one OSPFv3 instance with a maximum number of 200 dynamically learned routes. So, what would you do with that? Put each OSPF for Routed Access switch in its own NSSA area uplinked to a more capable ASBR, using OSPF to advertise customer routes, but learning nothing but a default? This is really meant for L3 in the wiring closet, not SP stuff, where you'd likely want to run customer routes in BGP. But yes, put it in a totally (not so) stubby area to make sure it'll learn no more than 200 routes. BTW...is there really a 3650 switch, or is that just a very common typo for 3560? It's even in some cisco documents. It's a common typo. -A ___ 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] Hardware Encryption Product for Hub/Spoke Satellite Network
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:49:14 +, you wrote: Instead of relying on the routers for IPSEC VPN encryption, I am considering the use of dedicated hardware encryption appliances for that purpose. Out of curiosity, why? -A ___ 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] Limit port usage on a cisco 3550
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 10:21:10 +0700, you wrote: #2 : Or you can use SRR features on outgoing (downlink) port: OP (and the Subject) talks about 3550, which doesn't do SRR... -A ___ 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] Cisco 7600/6500 Netflow
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:46:29 +0400, you wrote: I reviewed thread 7600 + egress netflow + 12.2(33)SRE. There was mentioned Cisco 7600 hasn't hardware support of egress netflow. Please, could anybody give me links or materials approving that fact. I made little lab: Check out the NetFlow and NDE Configuration Guide. It's a little more involved than simply putting 'ip flow ingress' on the interface. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/7600/ios/12.2SR/configuration/guide/nde.html -A ___ 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] 3rd Party Twinax cables on Nexus 5000
On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:50:30 +0100, you wrote: Obviously these are not listed on the Nexus 5k data sheet, but does anyone know if they will work? Are they just re branded Cisco ones, or are the Cisco ones re branded generic cables? The supported ones (incl. 3rd party) are listed here: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps10110/data_sheet_c78-568589.html -A ___ 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] Nexus 5000 / Nexus 2000 SFP+ with LRM
Has anyone successfully run Nexus 5000s and Nexus 2000s with 3rd party 10Gbase-LRM SFP+? (LRM SFP+ is not supported from Cisco (yet?)). TIA, -A ___ 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] Queue type and buffer size on 10GE interfaces on rsp-720-10ge
On Tue, 4 May 2010 10:23:00 -0400, you wrote: I'm having difficulty finding any details on the size of the port buffers and/or queue type on the RSP720-3C-10GE sup card for a 7606-s. Anyone know the queue type (receive 8q4t, transmit 1p7q4, etc...) or port buffer size (16mb, 200mb, etc..). http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/7600/ios/12.2SR/configuration/guide/qos.html#wp1666032 -A ___ 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] 6500/Sup720 and SVI xconnect?
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:04:35 +0200, you wrote: If one were to want xconnected SVIs and real VPLS on a 6500/Sup720, what would one need? We need 10G, and using SIP-600 as core facing interfaces seems to be the only solution, albeit rather expensive. Check with your account team if the ES+ will be supported on the 6500 in a future software release. Also, on a 7600 (SR software), you can run Mux UNI (a trunk with VLANs and sub-interfaces on the same interface), even on LAN cards. I don't remember off the top of my head if that's supported on the 6500. -A ___ 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] 6500/Sup720 and SVI xconnect?
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:58:27 +0200, you wrote: Also, on a 7600 (SR software), you can run Mux UNI (a trunk with VLANs and sub-interfaces on the same interface), even on LAN cards. I don't remember off the top of my head if that's supported on the 6500. It is, but won't help. You still can't put the xconnect configuration on the SVI. The way I understood the question, that was not needed. -A ___ 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] 6500/Sup720 and SVI xconnect?
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:19:11 +0200, you wrote: I did actually mean xconnect configuration on a SVI. :-) A 7600 chassis and ES+ cards will do that today. It's probably less expensive than the SIP solution. Plus, SR is IMO better software than SX. YMMV. -A ___ 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] IP route analysis solution
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:47:26 +0200, you wrote: i did some googling and find 2 solutions in this area , Packet Design Route Explorer and HP RAMS I have used Route Explorer and Traffic Explorer in the past and found that they are very nice tools that work as advertised and provide lots of information. They're not exactly free, however. -A ___ 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] Diff between 3508G and 3550-12G
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:33:49 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time), you wrote: What are the primary differences between the 3508G and the 3550-12G? 3508G-XL is a very old layer 2 switch, 3550-12G is one generation newer (10 years?) and is a layer 3 switch. Both are end-of-sale, 3508G-XL is end-of-support, and you can't attach a new service contract to the 3550. You really should get something more recent. -A ___ 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] Strange ME3400 PPS Limit
You're doing or testing something wrong. (It's not possible to say what with the limited information you provide). The ME-3400 will happily do line rate. -A On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:57:47 -0400, you wrote: I have an ME3400 running 12.2(46)SE that will not pass (much) more than 1000pps through its copper gig port. The interface counters hover around 1000pps tx/rx, while the bps rate fluctuates (presumable due to the variable packet sizes getting thrown at it). There are no service policys or rate limits applied to any of the interfaces. Any thoughts? 5 minute input rate 1681000 bits/sec, 879 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 7545000 bits/sec, 1012 packets/sec ___ 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] 3750X?
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 01:39:18 +0200, you wrote: Are these X-models considerably more expensive than E-models? Less. Or are they targeted at replacing the E-models? Yes, both E and G, as far as I'm told. (The final prices are not in the GPL) -A ___ 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] Cisco 65/7600 Switch Module Blanks
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:20:14 +0100, you wrote: WS-X6K-SLOT-CVR=Catalyst 6000 Blank Line Card Slot Cover WS-X6K-SLOT-CVR-E= Catalyst 6500 Enhanced chassis line card slot cover I have to ask. What's 'enhanced' about the second piece of metal? The metal isn't enhanced. It's for the 6500-E chassis. I'm not sure of the difference, if any. It might be a slightly different color, for example. -A ___ 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] Cisco 65/7600 Switch Module Blanks
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:16:47 -0700, you wrote: Does anyone know if blank slot covers for the 65/7600 switches can be ordered, and if so what the part number is? I asked my sales team, but no answer back, and I cannot find the part number on the Dynamic Configuration Tool. WS-X6K-SLOT-CVR=Catalyst 6000 Blank Line Card Slot Cover WS-X6K-SLOT-CVR-E= Catalyst 6500 Enhanced chassis line card slot cover -A ___ 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] Mixing PFC3B and DFC3A with 10G linecards / 6500
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:48:00 -0600, you wrote: And the linecard I want to put in it uses a DFC3A. From the docs it seems that this arrangement will work, but A) I have to reboot the box, and B) PFC will fall back to operating as a PFC3A. That is correct. Can you live without 3B features? MPLS is only supported on the 3B, for example (the prime example, actually). What is the performance difference between the PFC3A and PFC3B? None. Are there any gotchas with running the 10G linecards in this box in this condition? There's MPLS, as mentioned, but there are other minor differences as well. -A ___ 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] CRS-MSC Part-Numbers and Prices Question
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:25:01 -, you wrote: Can somebody explain me the logic behind this ? If you're looking to buy a CRS, you really shouldn't have to bother with that. You should have people crawling all over you ready to explain everything and do all the work ;-) But anyway... CRS-MSB-B is the actual module, and the CRS-MSB-40G-B item is more of a configuration option (the other option is CRS-MSB-20G-B). What sets the price of the module is the option, but the service is attached to the module, not the option. -A ___ 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] Problem with Microsoft NLB on Server 2008 running in Multicast mode
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:49:38 -0700, you wrote: So, at this point I think we've decided to resolve the issue by backing out this patch, moving the cluster to its own separate vlan, leave the cluster in unicast mode, and call it a day. Just remember not to run it on VMware, then. (As I said, unicast mode i (even more) br0ken with vSwitches in there) -A ___ 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] switches for mpls
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:21:49 -0500, you wrote: I want something that can do line rate gig, multiple streams, with reasonable buffers, multicast, MPLS in hardware, and netflow, with some number of optical ports (sfp or gbic, whatever). 3560s seem out due to the buffering issues 3560 has no MPLS and no NetFlow. I can get a 4900M but by the time I pay for that 4900M has no MPLS and no NetFlow. A 4948 doesn't have enough optical to be safe. 4948 has no MPLS and no NetFlow. 4500 chassis 4500 has no MPLS, and NetFlow is only on the Sup5-10G Am I missing anything? ME-6524? -A ___ 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] Problem with Microsoft NLB on Server 2008 running in Multicast mode
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:01:55 +0100, you wrote: C6k(config)# arp vrf X 10.0.0.1 03bf.0abc.def0 ARPA If it is in fact a 6500, that alone is a pretty bad idea, as traffic bound for the cluster will be process-switched. It is recommended to add at static MAC entry as well. mac-address-table static 03bf.0abc.def0 vlan X int Y disable-snoop -A ___ 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] Problem with Microsoft NLB on Server 2008 running in Multicast mode
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:57:33 +0100, you wrote: If it is in fact a 6500, that alone is a pretty bad idea, as traffic bound for the cluster will be process-switched. It is recommended to add at static MAC entry as well. Hmm, I can't seem to reproduce this. I know I've seen that once and I think the problem was described in white paper, but I can't seem to find it now. Maybe it's fixed in newer code. -A ___ 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/
