JP Morgan contact
Would anyone from JP Morgan just so happen to be lurking on the list? If so, would you mind contacting me off-list regarding a reachability issue that some of my customers are experiencing with your website(s), specifically jpmpb.com. Thanks Tom
Re: Team Cymru BGP bogon status ???
Working just fine from Virgin Media. On 31 January 2016 at 17:19, Daniel Corbe wrote: >> On Jan 31, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Matthew Huff wrote: >> >> Starting around 7:17 am EST, we lost our IPv4 & IPv6 BGP connections to >> Cymru. We have two connections in both IPv4 and IPv6 on both of our two >> routers. On each router one connection is stuck in active, the other >> providing 0 prefixes. I can’t get to http://www.team-cymru.org from either >> work or home. Anyone know what’s up? > > Their website appears to be down as well. I’m guessing network outage? > Maybe something more sinister? > >
Re: LX sfp minimum range
I once tried an LX-SMF-MMF-LX type setup using mode conditioning patch leads between the SMF-MMF and MMF-LX portions of the span. I would be hesitant to recommend it, simply touching the patch lead on the MMF-LX portion would result in horrendous error counts. Suffice to say, we bit the bullet and got some SMF blown through (tubes ftw). I have also used LX-LX on short SMF runs of a couple of metres, for 1G and 10G, with no issues. On 27 January 2012 16:47, Pierre-Yves Maunier wrote: > 2012/1/27 Steven Tardy > > > On 01/26/12 16:33, Pierre-Yves Maunier wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> It can happends that SX works on singlemode but it can fail anytime. > >> > >> just because you can doesn't mean you should. > > > > we have experience multiple cases where LX-MMF-LX works great for 3-5+ > > years... > > then one day no longer gets link. swapping to a different fiber pair > > restores link. > > can't remember SX-MMF-SX failing after years of service. > > > > > That's why I wrote 'but it can fail anytime' meaning, I strongly recommand > to NOT do it. > > > -- > Pierre-Yves Maunier >
Re: Strange static route
I found I had to do this many years ago on some Cisco routers to get them to load balance (per packet) across two links. Adding 0.0.0.0/0 routes across both links just resulted in traffic routing across one link. Broke it into two /1's per link and it worked perfectly. On 24 September 2011 02:12, Glen Kent wrote: > Hi, > > I have seen a few operators adding static routes like: > 0.0.0.0/1 some next-hop and > 128.0.0.0/1 some next-hop. > > Why would anyone want to add such static routes? What does 0.0.0.0/1 > mean. Note that the netmask is 1 and not 0. > > Thanks, > Glen > >
Re: switch speed question
Were not considering anything other than basic switching in this scenario, as is my understanding. 2 hosts will create 2gbps of traffic as each host is inputting 1gbps into the switch (just multiply it by 12 to give you 24 ports). 3 hosts will create 3gbps of traffic as each inputs 1gbps into the switch (e.g. each host could be sending 500mbps to each of the other hosts). And thus and so forth. :-) You can only input a maximum of 24gbps into the switch, which means that only 24gbps will cross the backplane. Yes there is 48gbps if you combine tx and rx of each port, but traffic only has to cross the backplane once, from rx on one port to tx on another. Sorry if I have hijacked this thread from the OP. :-) Tom On 26/02/2009, at 12:18 AM, David Barak wrote: Doesn't that assume that the communicarion is unidirectional? If two hosts are exchanging 1Gbps flows, the traffic across the bus will be 2Gbps, right? And of course, this doesn't include any bus-intensive operations like multicast or things which require cpu processing - those can consume a lot more resources than the input rate of the port. -David Barak Tom Storey wrote: Not every bit in results in just one bit out. Broadcast, multicast, flooding for unknown MACs (or switching failures), ... They were talking about a simple scenario where a bit that enters a port will leave a port. With 24 gigabit ports, for all intents and purposes, you will only ever have 24 gigabits at the most traversing the backplane.
Re: switch speed question
> Not every bit in results in just one bit out. Broadcast, multicast, > flooding for unknown MACs (or switching failures), ... They were talking about a simple scenario where a bit that enters a port will leave a port. With 24 gigabit ports, for all intents and purposes, you will only ever have 24 gigabits at the most traversing the backplane.
Re: FW: Ctrl+Shift+6 then X
> 'No ip domain lookup' will solve your problem instance below. Eg dns True, but only really useful until you configure the device and it can reach a DNS server, at which point you lose the ability to resolve any hostname, but would be very handy in a lab where DNS is never likely to exist I must say. I might include that into my lab template. :-)
Re: FW: Ctrl+Shift+6 then X
Erm, what does that have to do with DNS lookups? :-) > line con 0 > transport preferred none > line vty 0 15 > transport preferred none > > Nick >
RE: FW: Ctrl+Shift+6 then X
FWIW Ive rarely had a problem breaking out of ping/traceroute/etc on a Cisco. I have found that Shift-Ctrl, then a very very small delay and 6 (while still holding down Shift-Ctrl) works like a charm every time. Maybe the terminals I use are just more friendly towards that sort of key sequence than others. :-) Though the only thing it doesnt seem to help with is when you have no DNS servers configured and mistype "configt", or some other command that doesnt exist and it tries to resolve it through broadcast several times. Ive found its futile to try and get out of that. Tom > Ye, exact same things happens for me, then after it decides to execute it > you have a nice long line of 6x6x66x6x666x6, tried the Ctrl+6 no such > luck... > > -Original Message- > From: Shon Elliott [mailto:s...@unwiredbb.com] > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 10:48 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org >> nanog > Subject: Re: FW: Ctrl+Shift+6 then X > > Bruce, > > I have that problem using any terminal program (I use SecureCRT).. I have > to > bang the command like 10-20 times for the device to recognize it. Kind of > wished > CTRL-C or something worked better and actually worked well. > > > Shon Elliott > Senior Network Engineer > unWired Broadband, Inc. > > > > Bruce Grobler wrote: >> Hi Guys, >> >> >> >> If anyone can tell me how to resolve this issue there's a strong > possibility >> of a fedex'd beer. >> >> >> >> Using Putty or any other ssh/telnet terminal I find that Ctrl+Shift+6 >> then > X >> (on a cisco) works only sometimes after beating your keyboard multiple > times >> with a hammer, has anyone else come across or had a solution to this > problem >> ? >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Bruce Grobler >> >> Yo!Africa - Network Engineer >> >> Landline: +263-4-701300, Cellphone: +263-91-2364532 >> >> Skype ID: bruce.grobler >> >> >> >> > > >
Re: ? how cisco router handle the out-of-order ICMP echo-reply packets
Considering that Ciscos wait for a response before sending the next echo-request, you should never end up in a situation where replys are received out of order. That is going by my knowledge of traditional IOS. Ive not yet had any experience with IOS XE or XR to be able to quote any other experience. Tom On 06/01/2009, at 9:56 PM, Zhao Ping wrote: Hi, Does someone happen to know how the Cisco IOS handle the out-of- order ICMP echo-reply packets? print it as success or lose? Thanks, Zhao Ping
Anyone have experience with Alcatel 9500MXC?
Hi all. I have several of these units deployed, they are all running fine, but I am looking for information about them, specifically SNMP related. Our Alcatel contacts have given us a collection of MIBs, from which I cant really get anything useful out of the radios. Other than that they dont seem too hell bent on providing much further help on this subject. Hoping someone else on here might have experience with these units and can share some information about how to get useful information out of them via SNMP, like traffic and error counters, signal parameters, alarm status, etc. Cheers, Tom
