Re: [c-nsp] Software Download Enhancements
At 02:46 PM 11/15/2010, Justin M. Streiner wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Pavel Skovajsa wrote: I have just received notification below. [...] To improve your experience with Cisco and protect your investment in Cisco Products, we're pleased to announce the improvement of Software download entitlement controls effective December 13, 2010. I foresee lots of TAC cases being opened by pissed-off users on 13 December. I'm not saying that to be flippant, just realistic. Managing support entitlements is already a big enough headache for large organizations. Indeed. This was bound to happen, I guess, they simply need more money for support contracts, since their latest round of earnings was down sharply. ___ 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] dmzlink-bw and ebgp-multihop 2
I have a very unusual network setup, ISP-A requires me to have ebgp-multihop of 2 because we're not physically connected (we seem to be 2 hops away) Anyways, is there some kind of design implementation to use to make dmzlink-bw work? neighbor disable-connected-check only works if you're 1 hop from a ebgp session, dmzlink-bw works fine on ISP-B's session (3356). Currently I'm using bgp bestpath as-path multipath-relax but the traffic ratios are costing me money, and we do not have the memory to take full tables, or partials (only 32k max) or the money to afford to buy a huge switch just for memory Anyone have some suggestions? Thanks! -G ___ 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] 4948 Port question/confusion
This might sound like a very strange question. A 4948 has 52 physical ports, 48 copper and 4 sfp, however, in ios we only see 48 ports. Is this normal? 122-31.SGA1 ___ 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] Router/Switch performance
At 02:56 PM 12/7/2007, Roy wrote: Up until recently Cisco had two very handy PDF files: One had the various routers and their expected PPS while the other covered switches. They have both disappeared from the Cisco site. Does anyone still have copies? http://www.cisco.com/web/partners/tools/quickreference/index.html -- Gary Stanley ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ 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] Question about show sdm prefer command output on Cat3560G
At 07:13 AM 12/3/2007, Alex A. Pavlenko wrote: Dear colleagues! Consider simple output of show sdm prefer command on cat3560G LOP3-1#sh sdm pref The current template is desktop default template. The selected template optimizes the resources in the switch to support this level of features for 8 routed interfaces and 1024 VLANs. ...the rest is omitted The question is what does 8 routed interfaces exactly mean? Is it a maximum number of SVIs or routed ports that I can configure on a switch? What happens when I configure 9 or more SVIs? 8 routed interfaces are 8 layer3 (ie: no switchport etc) ports. -- Gary Stanley ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ 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] 3750 as bgp platform ?
At 10:53 PM 10/27/2007, matthew zeier wrote: I made need a (cost effective) bgp-capable router for a remote deployment which would only need to announce -1- route and take in a default route from -1- provider. Also needs to push 100Mbps of traffic. A 3550 or 3750 can do what you require just fine. If you buy a 3550, make sure it's an EMI image :) ___ 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 Communities - Sample Configs
At 02:48 PM 10/26/2007, Paul Stewart wrote: Hi folks... I'm looking for a site or info on BGP communities. I have a fairly good understanding I think, we use them on some upstreams today to influence routes etc. My question is that now we want to implement BGP communities in our network core. This way our BGP customers can influence routes to our upstreams and peers. Anyone have any good resources on this as I'm missing a small piece of the puzzle and/or best practices on implementing? BGP Design and Implementation on ciscopress.com, and look in chapter 9 Service Provider Architecture. It has some really good example(s) on how to accomplish this. -- Gary Stanley ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ 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] Full net table too large for Sup720 already?
At 11:58 PM 10/26/2007, jim bartus wrote: I don't claim to be an expert but I looked into this before and here's what I found: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/presentations/fib-desilva.pdf check out page 8, page 10, and the first bullet point on page 15. Page 10 says the limit on a 3B is 192k by default but can be tweaked up to 239K. According to the Weekly Routing Table Report cisco posts to nanog the number currently out there in a full internet bgp feed is 234760. http://thyme.apnic.net/ap-data/2007/10/20/0400/weekly So if I understand that correctly a default 720-3B will already overflow and one that is configured to support the max 239K has less than 5K left of headroom. poking through those bgp reports here's the trend: 2007-05-01: 219238 2007-06-01: 221952 +2624 2007-07-01: 224395 +2443 2007-08-01: 227097 +2702 2007-09-01: 229742 +2645 2007-10-01: 233290 +3548 I read that as saying 3B owners have less than 2 months left until they can't fit a full bgp table in tcam. Thats not counting any local/igp routes or arp entries. If you really need to take full tables, just filter out /24's and make sure you have a default route being sent from your upstream for a 'catchall' on the aforementioned filter list. That will cut tcam usage in half, since half of the entries on the routing tables are /24's. I do this on some of our gear and it works pretty well. ___ 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] 3550 + 6509-sup720 output buffer failures
At 02:39 AM 10/20/2007, Adrian Minta wrote: 3550 is XL ? No. 3550 EMI. -- Gary Stanley ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ 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] 3550 + 6509-sup720 output buffer failures
Greetings. I have a 3550 doing basic layer3 routing on a single port to a 6509, but the 3550's port (fa0/1) to the 6509 reports a low amount of output buffer failures and underruns. I've seen these errors before on another 3550 plugged up to the 6509, but I was unable to find the cause. It doesn't appear to be causing (any) issues that I am aware of, however I have had some customers complain about a very low amount of packet loss. Has anyone had this issue or something similar or how to fix it? ___ 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] PPS ratings on Cisco's site?
At 12:21 PM 7/25/2007, Nate Carlson wrote: The URL http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/765/tools/quickreference/routerperformance.pdf is no longer valid.. anyone happen to have a mirror of this page? -nc Try here: http://www.cisco.com/web/partners/downloads/765/tools/quickreference/routerperformance.pdf And the main page would be here: http://www.cisco.com/web/partners/tools/quickreference/index.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/
Re: [c-nsp] Advice on upgrade
At 03:23 AM 7/7/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, The time has come for us to upgrade the border router, currently not a Cisco. The traffic passing on GIGE is around 800 mbp/s Have need for 3 GIG ports currently with view to a fourth next quarter. It has 17 ACLs (not huge lists). New to Cisco world (which is why I ask advice here and not a sales rep :-), I think I am going to want either a 7304-NSE-100, or 7604 with Sup32, or would a 7200 NPE-G2 be more than capable? We are not in need of BGP as we have a single carrier, but this may change in time to come. Would a 7600 be even suitable for our needs as is it more or less a layer 3 switch if I understand my research on itbor would it be, but it's overkill? Maybe someone has better device suggestion? TIA Nick I'd look at the 7201, it has a couple gb of memory, quite a few gig ports, only consumes 84W(?) of power, and is in 1u form factor. ___ 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] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?
At 05:23 AM 6/24/2007, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 03:47:01PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote: I was mostly curious if someone had had issues with them, other than these documented limitations. Some of the worst problems we experienced: - switch suddenly stopping to switch any traffic, requiring a power cylce (we had the device RMAed, but the second one did it as well). TAC never found the reason. - when you applied ACLs to the GE ports, and the ACL exceeded a certain length and could not fit to the TCAM anymore, the switch *SILENTLY* removes the ACL from the interface (it prints a warning to CONSOLE, but not to vty, syslog, or anywhere else where you might actually notice). TAC claimed this cannot be changed. We've had that same problems as you in the past, it was a curious learning experience. ___ 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 Cpu
At 11:23 AM 6/21/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, someone have idea on how a clear ip bgp * soft in and clear ip bgp soft out can smooth out CPU use ? Before the clear: CPU utilization for five seconds: 99%/0%; one minute: 69%; five minutes: 66% PID Runtime(ms) Invoked uSecs 5Sec 1Min 5Min TTY Process 174 97860441440825344 6 47.56% 53.47% 52.70% 0 BGP Router After the clear: CPU utilization for five seconds: 18%/0%; one minute: 37%; five minutes: 37% PID Runtime(ms) Invoked uSecs 5Sec 1Min 5Min TTY Process 174101175361440872287 7 16.15% 22.41% 23.23% 0 BGP Router Are you taking full routes from 1 peer? If you only have 1 peer you could just take a default route, no point in taking transit routes from just 1 upstream. G. Stanley IP Engineering (AS36352) Velocity Servers, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~gary ___ 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] Maximum Full tables on GRP-B
At 07:04 PM 4/30/2007, Dan Armstrong wrote: As a rule of thumb, how many peers with full routing tables do you think you could put on a GRP-B with 512M or RAM? Would it be suicide to do 5 full feeds + some smaller peering? Do you really need to take full tables? You could take partials/full and filter the uninteresting stuff out. Or, just take default route from one, partials from everything else :) ___ 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] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?
At 01:50 PM 4/21/2007, Oliver Boehmer \(oboehmer\) wrote: check the archives, this has been discussed before.. it boils down to use what you're most comfortable and familiar with, and as you're using OSPF already, the choice should be clear. Indeed. Stick with OSPF. ___ 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/
