Out of your experience people...
I am in the process of planning and design a good server room,
there are standards for constructing server rooms...please your input in
this issue
How to design a good server Room?
--
madunix
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
Hi,
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:35:26AM -0500, Nassess, George wrote:
> debate of Mr. QoS (me) versus Mr. Excess bandwidth (them) but I wanted
> to know if there is anyone on the list who has actually deployed an
> enterprise VoIP solution without QoS, and whether the deployment was
> successful as
We have been suffering a RIP bug on C7600, IOS 12.3(33)SRB, that
causes ugly tracebacks, with no public description yet; the lack of a
public description on the most likely bug is making our assigned TAC
engineer not tell us what this is about, so we can't think whether it
applies to us or not, or
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:47:15PM -0500, Dan wrote:
> We have a voip system we have been running in our department now for
> about a year. Only 12 phones, connected through various wireless links
> with throughput of up to 40mbit. Speed is definitely not an issue for
> us, but we notice glitches
Then you're options are pretty wide open. I'm running 12.3-22 with
IP/IDS/FW/3des. That card is supported widely.
-Original Message-
From: james edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp
On 5/22/07, Scott Granados <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which WIC are you using, ADSL or ADSL-DG?
>
>
ADSL.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/piperm
Which WIC are you using, ADSL or ADSL-DG?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of james edwards
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:42 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] IOS for ADSL WIC on 2600
I am trying to select an IOS for a 26xx ro
Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
IOS (tm) C2600 Software (C2600-IS4-M), Version 12.3(19), RELEASE
SOFTWARE (fc2)
Technical Support: http://www.cisco.com/techsupport
Copyright (c) 1986-2006 by cisco Systems, Inc.
Compiled Fri 12-May-06 04:14 by evmiller
Image text-base: 0x80008098, data
I am trying to select an IOS for a 26xx router & and the ADSL WIC. The
doc's on this WIC mention 12.1 IOS version that are not available. The
tools at Cisco.com for selecting IOS to match your hardware do not
have an option for the ADSL WIC & 26xx. Can anyone point me in the
right direction ?
Than
> Interestingly, Cisco's feature navigator doesn't list
> 12.2(33)SRB on the 7600 as supporting BFD 1.
IMO, Feature Navigator isn't worth the bandwidth for anything
related to hardware-forwarding platforms.
Unfortunately, *because* of Feature Navigator, the release notes
are also becoming less a
> Looking at the datasheet for the 1-port OC48 POS it
> says that the minimum release on the 7600 for that SPA is
> 12.2(33)SRA but in the hardware configuration docs for the
> SIP-400 it give some caveats for the OC48 SPA when running
> 12.2(18)SXF...
Never trust a data sheet.
Release Not
I have a 3745 with a single DS-3 interface that carries a normal mix of
data traffic and some g.729 and g.711 traffic to a 7206VXR/NPE400 on the
other end. I am seeing no errors, but showing output drops at about 70%
utilization on the DS-3 and about 25% cpu. Would you think it's possible
that the
nether.net
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Security Advisory: Vulnerability In Crypto Library
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20070522-crypto.shtml
htt
Hi,
My 2 cents about Mr. QoS versus Mr. Excess bandwidth :)
I have seen big networks without QoS working properly. But in that case
it were dedicated networks (mostly voice with minor data sessions)
On the other hand, I have seen networks without congestion and wrong QoS
implementation causing
Kanagaraj Krishna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>Whats the difference btw both this cards and which would suit an ISP
> environment running BGP, IPv6 etc?
The NSE-1 was an oddball card even in its day. End of software
maintenance for it was back in 2005. It has similar performance to
>Whats the difference btw both this cards and which would suit an ISP
> environment running BGP, IPv6 etc?
NSE-1 is the PXF, which runs *some* functions in hardware - and also
has lots of bugs (I used to work with these at a previous employer).
I believe 7200 with NSE-1 is EOS, and the best
"Harold Ritter \(hritter\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oops. I guess I should have looked at that first ;0) I don't understand
> you got assigned a /64. I though the smallest block that could be
> assigned to a customer site was /48.
It's actually anywhere from a /64 to a /48, in the ARIN re
Hi,
Whats the difference btw both this cards and which would suit an ISP
environment running BGP, IPv6 etc?
/Kana
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.n
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:46:39PM -0400, Eric Kagan wrote:
> Who or why are people against using a policy map that allows "up to x" of
> bandwidth for the specified (ACL, class-map) but is available for all other
> traffic when there is no VOIP ? This seems backwards / worse to me to
> restrict t
On Tuesday 22 May 2007, Nassess, George wrote:
> I am in the process of extending our distributed VoIP call center to a
> partner company, and their networking staff are extremely adamant that
> they do not wish to implement QoS on their remote LAN, the DS3 link that
> the voice traffic will traver
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:47:15PM -0500, Dan wrote:
> What is the recommended way to implement qos for voip and video? We have
> 3550,3560 and 2960 switches.
If you have got cisco phones, you might try the "auto qos" feature. It doesn't
cope with video (as far as I can recall), but might suffic
We have a voip system we have been running in our department now for
about a year. Only 12 phones, connected through various wireless links
with throughput of up to 40mbit. Speed is definitely not an issue for
us, but we notice glitches with the quality on an ongoing basis. We are
currently impl
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:48:48PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > On Tuesday 22 May 2007, Nassess, George wrote:
> > > I am in the process of extending our distributed VoIP
> call center to a
> > > partner company, and their networking staff are extremely
> adamant that
> > > they do not wish
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:35:25PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
> Interesting approach..;)
>
> So, in theory you could rate-limit *everything* in access-list 106 except
> for the VOIP traffic itself therefore "almost guaranteeing" X amount of
> bandwidth specific to your needs?
>
> in other words:
Interesting approach..;)
So, in theory you could rate-limit *everything* in access-list 106 except
for the VOIP traffic itself therefore "almost guaranteeing" X amount of
bandwidth specific to your needs?
in other words:
access-list 106 deny ip any host x.x.x.x
access-list 106 permit ip any any
Looking at the datasheet for the 1-port OC48 POS it says that the
minimum release on the 7600 for that SPA is 12.2(33)SRA but in the
hardware configuration docs for the SIP-400 it give some caveats for
the OC48 SPA when running 12.2(18)SXF... The SIP-400 is supported in
SXE... I'm
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:48:48PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 May 2007, Nassess, George wrote:
> > I am in the process of extending our distributed VoIP call center to a
> > partner company, and their networking staff are extremely adamant that
> > they do not wish to implement QoS on
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lamar Owen
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] VoIP without QoS
On Tuesday 22 May 2007, Nassess, George wrote:
> I am in the process of extending our distributed VoIP call center to a
> partner company, and their networking
On Tue, 22 May 2007, matthew zeier wrote:
> I do have that - as mentioned earlier I probably need to use a /64 for
> the interface. Unfortunately, I was only allocated a /64 from he.net.
You should try to get at least a /48 since you're not just a simple
end-site. In the meantime, you could co
On Tuesday 22 May 2007, Nassess, George wrote:
> I am in the process of extending our distributed VoIP call center to a
> partner company, and their networking staff are extremely adamant that
> they do not wish to implement QoS on their remote LAN, the DS3 link that
> the voice traffic will traver
Hello List,
I am in the process of extending our distributed VoIP call center to a
partner company, and their networking staff are extremely adamant that
they do not wish to implement QoS on their remote LAN, the DS3 link that
the voice traffic will traverse, or the core LAN in our shared
datace
On Tuesday 22 May 2007, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> RJ48S is indeed the correct designation for T1, but it uses pairs 1-2
> and 4-5. 568B pairing would be white-orange and white-blue. 1-2 and
> 7-8 are the correct pairs for 56K DDS circuits.
Ok, we're both wrong. :-)
RJ48S is the DDS 56K standard, an
Oops. I guess I should have looked at that first ;0) I don't understand
you got assigned a /64. I though the smallest block that could be
assigned to a customer site was /48.
-Original Message-
From: matthew zeier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:15 PM
To: Harold
I do have that - as mentioned earlier I probably need to use a /64 for
the interface. Unfortunately, I was only allocated a /64 from he.net.
Harold Ritter (hritter) wrote:
> Matthew,
>
> Make sure that you enable "ipv6 unicast-routing" globally. The router
> will not send router-advertisement m
Lamar Owen wrote:
> The T1's I've had experience with have all been wired RJ48S, which uses pairs
> 1-2 and 7-8 of the 8 pin plug (in TIA-568B that would be the orange-white and
> brown-white pairs). If your cables are TIA-568A or B they have the correct
> pairing. It's only if you have USOC
Thanks Arie,
Interestingly, Cisco's feature navigator doesn't list 12.2(33)SRB on the
7600 as supporting BFD 1. I wouldn't have found that. It looks like
we're going to have to wait for 12.2(18)SXH for our 6500's.
Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:
> Vinny,
>
> On the 6500 BFD version 1 would be intro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Security Advisory:
Multiple Vulnerabilities in Cisco IOS While Processing SSL Packets
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20070522-SSL
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20070522-SSL.shtml
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2007 May 22 1300 UTC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Security Advisory: Vulnerability In Crypto Library
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20070522-crypto.shtml
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20070522-crypto.shtml
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2007 May 22 1300 UTC (GMT
On Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:15:00PM +0200, Vincent De Keyzer wrote:
> I can't find the pinout of the DB-15 connector on the NM-2CE1B.
I'm fairly certain it's this one...
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/access/acs_serv/as5400/hw_inst/mig/54crdcbl.pdf
Simon
--
Simon Lockhart | * Sun
Hello list,
I can't find the pinout of the DB-15 connector on the NM-2CE1B.
Can somebody help?
Vincent
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/
On Friday 18 May 2007, Vincent Aniello wrote:
> Are there cables specifically for use with T1s that we should be using
> to connect circuits to our Cisco routers with integrated CSU/DSUs? We
> currently use CAT5E cables and have chronic problems with errors on a
> few of our circuits. The cable l
Vinny,
On the 6500 BFD version 1 would be introduced in 12.2(18)SXH. Version 0
is available since 12.2(18)SXE.
On 7600 it is available since 12.2(33)SRB (which is already out).
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps6017/products_feature_guid
e09186a00803fbe87.html
Arie
-Original Mes
Matthew,
Make sure that you enable "ipv6 unicast-routing" globally. The router
will not send router-advertisement messages nor respond to router
solicitation messages otherwise.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of matthew zeier
Sent: Tuesday,
Hi,
Do you have good reference that shows equivalence between Cisco
7609/12410 and Juniper concerning features, protocols and capability
(layer 3 packets per second throughput...)
Tks,
Alaerte
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
htt
Dear list,
I'm trying to configure a PPPoE-connection according
to the guide at http://tinyurl.com/yp2p58
This shouldn't be too much of an issue
but for some reason, when it gets to
the part of 'request-dialin'
followed by the protocol selection,
I get to pick everything but PPPoE -
the option is
All:
When using the "add-route" keyword with outside NAT, the next hop of the static
route that is created is the original (untranslated) outside address.
How frustrating for people who use NAT to separate overlapping address domains.
It would be great if you could specify the next-hop address,
46 matches
Mail list logo
