Re: [c-nsp] Connecting aux to console

Josh wrote: > I saw a post here awhile back about connecting the aux > port to console port to avoid using a term server, but > cannot find it now. > > Based on the docs that I can find, it looks like I > should be using a rollover cable (got that), configure > the aux port (8N1, no flow control,

Re: [c-nsp] nat question

I figured it out. I forgot that I needed ip nat inside on f0/0. Everything works now. Thanks. Dan. Dan wrote: > Kevin, > > That make sense. Now how can I route certain ip's or subnets to this > gateway? On the lan port f0/0 i already have a route-map called "inet" > that sets the next-hop

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

Re: [c-nsp] Maximum Full tables on GRP-B

Due to the way that BGP works, you won't end up with "full" tables from each one. The router will work out a single table out of all the speakers once the route processing has settled down. That single table will be the memory pig... (well BGP + CEF together...) That being said, I'd be surprise

[c-nsp] Connecting aux to console

I saw a post here awhile back about connecting the aux port to console port to avoid using a term server, but cannot find it now. Based on the docs that I can find, it looks like I should be using a rollover cable (got that), configure the aux port (8N1, no flow control, 9600, modem inout(?) -- go

[c-nsp] Maximum Full tables on GRP-B

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? ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nethe

Re: [c-nsp] nat question

Kevin, That make sense. Now how can I route certain ip's or subnets to this gateway? On the lan port f0/0 i already have a route-map called "inet" that sets the next-hop behavior for subnets. When I create a sequence in the "inet" route-map that permits a certain ip and sets the next-hop to the

Re: [c-nsp] nat question

On 4/30/07, Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > interface FastEthernet0/3/3 > switchport access vlan 303 [...] > route-map nat-wb permit 10 > match interface FastEthernet0/3/3 [...] > interface Vlan303 > ip address 64.x.x.1 255.255.255.240 [...] > ip nat inside source route-map nat-wb interface Fa

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 3640 as PPPoE Server and PPPoE Client impossible???

Use a bba-group instead of a vpdn-group. omar parihuana wrote: > Hi List, > > Currently I have a 3640 that works like PPPoE Concentrator, rightnow I would > like configure that router as PPPoE client too, however I have an error: > > Celda201#config t > Enter configuration commands, one per line.

[c-nsp] Cisco 3640 as PPPoE Server and PPPoE Client impossible???

Hi List, Currently I have a 3640 that works like PPPoE Concentrator, rightnow I would like configure that router as PPPoE client too, however I have an error: Celda201#config t Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z. Celda201(config)#vpdn-group 2 Celda201(config-vpdn)#reques

[c-nsp] nat question

I'm having trouble setting up nat on a router. I have a route-map routing internal subnets to various dsl lines. We have another isp connection now that I need to connect to the router on an hwic and setup nat. I have a workstation that i'm trying to route through to the new isp connection b

Re: [c-nsp] HSRP and BGP

0Howdy, matt carter wrote: > > speaking at least from a domestic point of view, most nsps are happy enough > to allocate a /29 instead of a /30 for the interconnect subnet but aren't > too happy about running dual layer 3 bgp peers on a single layer 2 > connection. ( mainly i think because it se

Re: [c-nsp] bgp and update-source

Hi It would take the physical IP but also remember it would take the primary IP address on the interface just incase you have any secondary IPs Peter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gernot Nusshall Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:09 PM To:

Re: [c-nsp] bgp and update-source

> neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx update-source FastEthernet0/0 > > Would bgp take the stanby ip or the physical ip of the interface? Physical interface address. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/ci

Re: [c-nsp] ASA EZVPN config

Hi Christian, Christian Zeng wrote: > * Ahmad Cheikh-Moussa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> When I add vpnclient management clear to my vpnclient config, then >>> everything >>> works. Is this a new feature ? > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6120/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186

[c-nsp] bgp and update-source

hi to all, I´ve got an theoretical question.if i would have configured on FastEthernet 0/0 a standby ip and in the bgp routing process: neighbor xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx update-source FastEthernet0/0 Would bgp take the stanby ip or the physical ip of the interface? regards, Gernot

Re: [c-nsp] Regarding QinQ and 802.1ad-2005

Hi Arnab, Arnab Bakshi wrote on 18/4/2007 8:01 πμ: > Hi All, > >I have been experimenting with QinQ a few days and I came across > some issues and questions I would like to put forward. > >My question is whether QinQ or 802.1Q which is said to be supported > by cisco 3550, 7206 series sw

[c-nsp] Modularity for 6500?

Hi All, I am about to install some new 6500's with Sup32. Is software modularity a sensible path to take for IOS version? Looking at the release notes, it doesn't support MPLS/OSM/some SIP/SPA but that's ok, I don't need those. I am looking at IP Services. Thanks -- This email and any files

Re: [c-nsp] ASA EZVPN config

* Ahmad Cheikh-Moussa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> When I add vpnclient management clear to my vpnclient config, then everything >> works. Is this a new feature ? http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6120/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a008068dabe.html#wp1001074 >One another questio

Re: [c-nsp] BGP received-routes

Hi Dimitry, I looks like those routes are originating via your IGP which has a lower AD than IBGP. In this case do so ip route XX.XX.XX.0/22 to see how that route is being learnt and injected into the routing table. Regards, Peter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EM

Re: [c-nsp] HSRP and BGP

>> Is this not a valid way to do HSRP to an upstream? Is there something >> wrong with this methodology? Is there some configuration in the speaking at least from a domestic point of view, most nsps are happy enough to allocate a /29 instead of a /30 for the interconnect subnet but aren't