Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

Hi, On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:25:28PM -0400, Jeff Kell wrote: > Wasn't the 2948G the odd one that could do L3, but only the uplinks? That was the 2948G-L3, which was EOLed very quickly, and deserved so. The 2948G is a very solid L2-only CatOS switch. It has some quirks (no IGMP snooping, for

[c-nsp] BGP support on Cisco ASA 5500 Series

Dear All, Does anyone know if Cisco has any plans to introduce BGP support on the ASA5500 series ? Juniper's SSG series supports BGP as well as the old Netscreens. I am sure it will be very useful in many environments and economical too. Any comments or input will be greatly appreciated.

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

On Tue, Jun 19, 2007, Jeff Kell wrote: > Steve Feldman wrote: > > No, the 3548XL is layer 2 only. I think the layer 3 features started > > showing up in the 3550 series switches. > > > > IIRC, the XLs are all L2 only. The 29nnXLs were strictly 100Mbps while > the 35nnXLs had Gig (uplinks).

Re: [c-nsp] DMVPN with OSPF

--- Vikas Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can I configure DMVPN with ospf. Is there ant > scalabilty issue with ospf wrt > DMVPN? DMVPN will work fine with OSPF - I've had decent success with it. The scaling issue you'll encounter is that a single DMVPN should be treated like a single broad

Re: [c-nsp] Still confused by Cisco's NAT syntax

Hi, NAT can be quite confusing. This is my view of it, but please feel free to correct if I'm wrong > 1. If packet arrives on an interface marked as "inside" > 2. AND route for packet destination address is known via an interface > marked as "outside" > 3. THEN translate source address

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

Steve Feldman wrote: > No, the 3548XL is layer 2 only. I think the layer 3 features started > showing up in the 3550 series switches. > IIRC, the XLs are all L2 only. The 29nnXLs were strictly 100Mbps while the 35nnXLs had Gig (uplinks). > We still have many of the 3500XL-series switches in

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

On Jun 19, 2007, at 4:04 PM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote: > TCIS List Acct wrote: >> We are looking for a cheap, but solid L2 48-port switch. My >> investigations have >> led me to the WS-C2948G and the WS-C3548-XL-EN. I know the 2948G >> is CatOS >> based, and the 3548 is IOS based (and both are

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

TCIS List Acct wrote: > We are looking for a cheap, but solid L2 48-port switch. My investigations > have > led me to the WS-C2948G and the WS-C3548-XL-EN. I know the 2948G is CatOS > based, and the 3548 is IOS based (and both are EOL'ed). Any experiences with > these switches in a light-dut

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

> Subject: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN? > > We are looking for a cheap, but solid L2 48-port switch. My > investigations have > led me to the WS-C2948G and the WS-C3548-XL-EN. I know the > 2948G is CatOS > based, and the 3548 is IOS based (and both are EOL'ed). Any > expe

[c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

We are looking for a cheap, but solid L2 48-port switch. My investigations have led me to the WS-C2948G and the WS-C3548-XL-EN. I know the 2948G is CatOS based, and the 3548 is IOS based (and both are EOL'ed). Any experiences with these switches in a light-duty environment would be appreciat

[c-nsp] Still confused by Cisco's NAT syntax

Hello list, after all these years, I am still not quite sure I understand Cisco's NAT syntax. I have read the famous "NAT Order of Operation" (CCO doc ID: 6209), and "Configuring Network Address Translation: Getting Started" (CCO doc ID: 13772) documents, and I have two questions. Let's

[c-nsp] HWIC-3G-GSM / HWIC-3G-CDMA

Hi Guys, I wanted to hear if anybody has any positive / negative experiences regarding these new cards. I want to order a few to test & hear about opinions regarding these. I see one need to have a very cutting-edge IOS to run them. cheers /rolf ___

[c-nsp] MSMQ, IP Router Alert and melting switches

Greetings, We've recently run into a problem with a home-grown application that uses MSMQ 'Reliable Multicast' (ie PGM) to communicate. Long story cut short, PGM relies on a set of packets called SPMs all of which have the IP Option 'Router Alert' set. This is one of those things that seem like a

Re: [c-nsp] ADSL QOS

Hi Ian, You need to use the "pre classify" on the virtual template qos pre-classify Search llq for vpn on cco Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian MacKinnon Sent: martedì 19 giugno 2007 15.41 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subje

[c-nsp] ADSL QOS

We are using BT for DSL here in the UK, and I am trying to prioritise voice over the connection. On our L2TP gateway I have :- policy-map 1MegLLQ class voice priority 1000 policy-map shape1Meg class class-default shape average 100 service-policy 1MegLLQ int

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco IAD2431

hello Tim, group indeed, CA place endpoint OOS . But , problem arise if MGCP endpoint located under nat and ca behind vpf. Lets figure out, for example , external ip of nat router was changed. In that case endpoint still silent , cause endpoint didnt know about such path changes. Ca comes to c

Re: [c-nsp] Load-balancing

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:52:33PM -0400, Julio Arruda wrote: > Rodney, > > I understand there is already some l4 hashing in the etherchannel side > of the house ? 6k I know does it in hardware. I think the 4k does it too. > So the feature you mention would add L4 hashing into what specific >

Re: [c-nsp] mBGP problem

> presumably you've reset the peer, made sure mcast routing is > enabled, & any other obvious things. > Thanks for the reply; yes I tried all the usual. Strangely, it all started working sometime over the weekend, as if by magic. Thanks, Michael. -- Michael Robson, | Tel: 0161 275 61