Brett Looney <> wrote on Thursday, August 23, 2007 1:57 AM:
>>> Can anyone please tell me how to initiate a DSL connection (forcing
>>> to authenticate) on an 877, and is it any different on an 837, etc.
>>> It seems to wait some sort of random period before retries.
>>
>> Its just a "normal" dia
Yes, replace it with a -M model. Its the only way.
Cheers,
Tom
> Thanx.
>
> Any possible upgrade to -M for 877... doubt it, but worth asking.
>
> ..Skeeve
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Looney
> Sent: Thursday, 23
Okay, now it makes sense:
"A unidirectional link occurs whenever traffic transmitted by the
local device over a link is received by the neighbor but traffic
transmitted from the neighbor is not received by the local device. If
one of the fiber strands in a pair is disconnected, as long as
autonego
Thanx.
Any possible upgrade to -M for 877... doubt it, but worth asking.
...Skeeve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Looney
Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2007 9:53 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Annex-M 877
>
> > Can anyone please tell me how to initiate a DSL connection (forcing to
> > authenticate) on an 877, and is it any different on an 837, etc.
> > It seems to wait some sort of random period before retries.
>
> Its just a "normal" dialer session. Fiddle with the dialer config
> to set the dial con
> We have a group of SMTP servers, all with their own addresses. Due
> to some customer firewall issues I need all the servers to deliver
> outbound mail using a different address than their own. All other
> inbound and outbound traffic should be untouched.
You might try using an external NAT addr
> Does anyone know if the 877 which supports Annex-M (3mb upstream on
> ADSL2+) is a software upgrade or a hardware specific device.
Definitely hardware specific - cannot be done with a software upgrade.
Part numbers for Oz:
CISCO877-M-K9
CISCO877W-G-E-M-K9
CISCO1801-M/K9
Circuits from the SAME carrier can generally share a clock because the
carrier will generally have a single "clock source" for all their circuits.
If you have 3 E1 from the same carrier, on one of the E1's you would
configure "clock source primary" and the rest could be "clock source
internal", bec
good point brad!
On 8/22/07, Brad Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Christian wrote:
>
> > On 8/22/07, Sergey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Routing entry for 164.1.12.0/24
> > > Known via "eigrp 10", distance 90, metric 18063872, type internal
> > > Redistributing via eigrp 10, ospf 10
From the documentation:
"At Layer 1, autonegotiation takes care of physical signaling and fault
detection. UDLD performs tasks that autonegotiation cannot perform, such
as detecting the identities of neighbors and shutting down misconnected
interfaces. When you enable both autonegotiation and
Well, I strongly recommend replacing radio unit with another device. There
are some legacy gigabit intel chipset cards and they have problem while
transmitting even octets to Cisco GE interfaces. The workaround was to
update intel NIC drivers. If you believe that you have intel card than I
guess yo
Hi guys,
I'm lost here, can't seem to find where I'm going wrong.
atm0.1 is unnumbered to vlan1
vlan1 has public IP address and is nat outside
bvi2 has internal address, is bridge for vlan2 and ssid "wifi4" and is
nat inside
wifi clients on this router are getting their IP addresses, but can't
r
Christian wrote:
> On 8/22/07, Sergey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Routing entry for 164.1.12.0/24
> > Known via "eigrp 10", distance 90, metric 18063872, type internal
> > Redistributing via eigrp 10, ospf 10
> > Advertised by ospf 10 subnets
> known via is telling you how the route was
Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> Does anyone know if the 877 which supports Annex-M (3mb
> upstream on ADSL2+) is a software upgrade or a hardware
> specific device.
It's a hardware update - the old 877's can't support Annex M. The new
part number is CISCO877-M-K9 and it's the same price as the old one.
We ran into the same problem when trying to terminate QinQ connections
from a Motorrola FTTP system. We ended up using PPPoE on the interface to
handle IPoQinQ
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, J Springer wrote:
> We are testing Q-in-Q termination with a 3660 router running 12.4(13c).
>
> Config snippet
Hi all
I have a 6509 10/100/1000 TX port facing a 10/100 on a 7204-vrx.
Both sides are hard coded to 100/Full and the link does not exhibit any layer 2
errors for this link yet on the 6509 side I am seeing many output drops.
And causing some packet loss, if I do a 5000 packet ping I get a dropp
Bad idea because it causes process switching.
Don't expect high throughput out of it.
Rodney
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 03:40:55PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
> nat on a stick
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk361/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094430.shtml
>
> Church, Charles wrote:
>
It's not supported anywhere that I know of right now so yes.
I've seen some references that it may be in SRC for 76xx.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 01:46:03PM -0500, Justin Shore wrote:
> Will this also be a problem on SR? I'm getting ready to work on this
> myself.
>
> Thanks
> Justin
>
> Rodney
nat on a stick
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk361/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094430.shtml
Church, Charles wrote:
> Yeah, it's possible to policy route the traffic to a loopback that has
> nat inside configured on it, and then out the normal interface. It's
> kludgy, but it'll work
Yeah, it's possible to policy route the traffic to a loopback that has
nat inside configured on it, and then out the normal interface. It's
kludgy, but it'll work, I think.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Malitsky
Sent: We
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Church, Charles) [Wed 22 Aug 2007, 20:15 CEST]:
>I think UDLD was originally designed for fiber, where there is no
>auto-neg.
Huh? No. Just because Cisco can't seem to get it working right in some
product lines (e.g., a GSR won't autonegotiate on the secondary port in
a
Big advantages of the SIP or ES20 series of line card vs. the
traditional WS series cards are:
- Distributed Forwarding dcef720
- Adv. QoS (Hierarchical Shaping, Dual-rate, 3-Color Policing, CBWFQ +
LLQ with WRED)
- Adv. MPLS L2VPN features such as:
- Port/VLAN based VPLS
- H-VPLS
Hello,
I am trying to figure out if it's possible to configure NAT in IOS on
just one interface. Specifically, say I need to translate traffic flows
between X.X.X.X and Y.Y.Y.Y. Y.Y.Y.Y is reachable through one
interface, that's my gateway to the "other" network. However, X.X.X.X
can be reached
I have an issue I'm trying to fix with NAT.
We have a group of SMTP servers, all with their own addresses. Due to
some customer firewall issues I need all the servers to deliver outbound
mail using a different address than their own. All other inbound and
outbound traffic should be untouched.
Will this also be a problem on SR? I'm getting ready to work on this
myself.
Thanks
Justin
Rodney Dunn wrote:
> That's right. I've seen that from the BU's that it's
> not currently supported. I hear it's on the roadmap
> to be "officially" supported.
>
> Rodney
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 0
Here's output from a "sh controller" during the outage state:
Interface GigabitEthernet3/0(idb 0x6363B6DC)
Hardware is WISEMAN 2.1, network connection mode is auto
network link is up
loopback type is none
startup time: 176602 usec
GBIC type is 1000BaseSX
idb->lc_ip_turbo_fs=0x606372F4, i
Does anyone have an operational experience with 12.2(33)SXH on a ME6524
yet? That may be asking a bit much since it came out on Monday but it
can't hurt to ask, right? :-)
I'm curious to see what it brings to the table over the ZU train. I
checked the Feature Navigator and SXH isn't listed y
Can anyone with a IPSec SPA (SSC-400 plus 2G IPSec SPA) tell me when I
should allow a VLAN onto the SPA trunk ports? For example, should a
VLAN be allowed onto the trunk if it has an SVI with a crypto map? What
about other VLANs in the same VRF? On both SPA interfaces or just one?
Here's an
While originally designed for fiber, I also find it useful where
wireless bridges are used.
Church, Charles wrote:
> I think UDLD was originally designed for fiber, where there is no
> auto-neg.
>
> Chuck
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 01:10:49PM -0500, Church, Charles wrote:
> I think UDLD was originally designed for fiber, where there is no
> auto-neg.
Oh, there is. Lots of. Which is very annoying if one end does it, and
the other doesn't - the link will just refuse to come up.
gert
--
USENE
Thanks, Chuck and Rodney.
CEF is enabled. I'm sending about 95Mbps of 1470-byte UDP packets to the
PA-GE interface, then the dueling gateways is trying to push that traffic
even higher. The router is connected to a radio that can only do 100Mbps, so
there's no chance of traffic exceeding 100Mbp
Tell that to my Cisco(4908G-L3) and HP(4000/5406) switches. Seems to
work for me.
(Actually with the 4908 you have to set Auto or else you don't get
link detection - the port will always show as up.)
Tim:>
On 8/22/07, Church, Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think UDLD was originally desi
I think UDLD was originally designed for fiber, where there is no
auto-neg.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Durack
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:12 PM
To: Cisco Mailing list
Subject: [c-nsp] UDLD vs Auto-neg
A question
Don't need locally significant VLANs, might be doing EoMPLS for Data
Center extension (perhaps), but I can always loopback ports for
local-switching (LAN ports are cheap.)
The question I'm still stuck with: what does shaping give me under
congestion condtions? Following some of the threads on cong
If you don't need locally significant VLANs for things like EoMPLS
termination or have a need to do real traffic shaping, then
I wouldn't spend the money.
Phil
On Aug 22, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Tim Durack wrote:
> Trying to figure out whether I really need a SIP-400 for WAN facing
> ethernet link
> 12.2(33)SXH Release Notes have been posted:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/release/notes/ol_14271.html
It looks like the pdf needs some attention. Lots of bullets with
no accompanying text.
___
cisco-nsp mai
Trying to figure out whether I really need a SIP-400 for WAN facing
ethernet links. Can I get away with the GigE uplinks on the new
SUP720-10G? Docs suggest it supports SRR. Not sure if this will work
if the GigE link is actually sub-rate (which is what I will be
facing.)
I'm not really convinced
A question that's been bugging me for a while: what does UDLD give me
that running auto-neg on both sides of a link doesn't? If I run auto,
link drops if the pathway goes one-way, and won't renegotiate until
the pathway is re-established. Isn't that all UDLD does?
Perhaps there are some failure mo
Hi Leo,
In plain words, it means bug.
Regards,
Kim
On 8/22/07, Leonardo Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does anybody know what's the meaning of ddts?
>
>
> sincerely,
> Leonardo.
>
>Flickr agora em português. Você clica, todo mundo vê. Saiba mais.
> _
;)
The dts is "Defect Tracking System".
I can't remember but I think the "dd", ok no comment there :),
is distributed defect.
Rodney
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 11:53:58AM -0300, Leonardo Souza wrote:
> Does anybody know what's the meaning of ddts?
>
>
> sincerely,
> Leonardo.
>
>
Can you get it in that condition and get a 'sh controller' and
'show int'?
It sounds like the ingress rx driver is locking up.
Try the latest 12.4 mainline code (12.4(16)) if you have it in the
lab and see if it's there too.
Rodney
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 11:45:29AM -0400, Adam Greene wrote:
>
On Aug 22, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Leonardo Souza wrote:
> Does anybody know what's the meaning of ddts?
Don't Drop the Soap ?
or more that likely...
Direct Digital Telephone Service
In what context is it being used.
-Patrick
--
Patrick Muldoon
Network/Software Engineer
INOC (http://www.inoc.net
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Can anyone please tell me how to initiate a DSL connection (forcing to
> authenticate) on an 877, and is it any different on an 837, etc.
> It seems to wait some sort of random period before retries.
Its just a "normal" dialer session. Fid
Hey all,
Does anyone know if the 877 which supports Annex-M (3mb upstream on ADSL2+)
is a software upgrade or a hardware specific device.
I've seen 877-M mentioned, along with 1801-M and an ADSL WIC-M, but I don't
know if these are special hardware releases or not.
If they are special hardware r
Hi all,
Can anyone please tell me how to initiate a DSL connection (forcing to
authenticate) on an 877, and is it any different on an 837, etc.
It seems to wait some sort of random period before retries.
.Skeeve
--
Skeeve Stevens, RHCE
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.skeeve.org
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 /
Does anybody know what's the meaning of ddts?
sincerely,
Leonardo.
Flickr agora em português. Você clica, todo mundo vê. Saiba mais.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-n
Hmm.
Upgraded router to 12.3(23).
Even after the upgrade, passing 82.3Mbps in / 42.5Mbps out over the
7204VXR's PA-GE interface (plus 1000BaseSX GBIC) causes the interface to
stop passing traffic.
Reseating the GBIC does not rectify the issue. However, reseating the PA-GE
card does.
Tried mo
I've seen this strange log on one of my gsr:
Aug 20 20:06:19.901: %MBUS-6-OIR: Bus Board(16) Inserted into Slot 27
Aug 20 20:06:56.277: %MBUS-6-OIR: Bus Board(16) Removed from Slot 27
A show env power shows:
gippa# sh environment power_supply
Slot # 48V AMP_48
If you are using to dial out then AUX, but if you want to use it as a backup
for OOB then I would use the console. That will enable you to see any
messages appearing during boot up.
Aaron
On 8/21/07, Conaway, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Give these a shot.
>
>
> Cable guide:
>
> http://ww
Lots of exciting new features such as config management
Wonder what exciting new bugs we will get :-)
Tim Durack wrote:
> 12.2(33)SXH Release Notes have been posted:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/release/notes/ol_14271.html
>
> Tim:>
> ___
There are significant differences
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps708/products_data_sheet0900aecd8017376e.html
--
Tom Sands
Chief Network Engineer
Kim Onnel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can i replace the WS-6748-GE-TX with WS-6548-GE-TX on a 6513 switch?
>
Performance is lower, but that's a relative statement as the 6513
architecture limits you to attachment to a single crossbar for slots 1-7.
> someone told me that the 65xx has less features to the
12.2(33)SXH Release Notes have been posted:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/release/notes/ol_14271.html
Tim:>
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
a
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 03:55:29PM +0300, Kim Onnel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can i replace the WS-6748-GE-TX with WS-6548-GE-TX on a 6513 switch?
>
> someone told me that the 65xx has less features to the 67xx, please
> help me identify what are those lacking features?
This depends on a lot of t
Hi,
Can i replace the WS-6748-GE-TX with WS-6548-GE-TX on a 6513 switch?
someone told me that the 65xx has less features to the 67xx, please
help me identify what are those lacking features?
thanks,
kim
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether
I've recently run into a slightly strange problem with one of my E1 circuits.
We operate a hub-and-spoke setup, where a number of lines terminate
into a single aggregation router on our side, and into a bunch of
different locations/CPEs on the remote end.
For all these lines, we have always had '
known via is telling you how the route was received..
redistributing is the protocol that is redistributing the route throughout
your network
advertised by is who/how the route is being advertised
On 8/22/07, Sergey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Explain please what do keywords "Known via", "Re
For example, to enable debugging of incoming SSH connections, use the
following EEM applet:
event manager applet EnableDebugging
event syslog occurs 1 pattern "%SYS-5-RESTART"
action 1.0 cli command "enable"
action 2.0 cli command "debug ip ssh"
For versions of IOS that don't support EEM but do s
Explain please what do keywords "Known via", "Redistributing via" and
"Advertised by" mean?
Rack1R3#sh ip ro 164.1.12.0
Routing entry for 164.1.12.0/24
Known via "eigrp 10", distance 90, metric 18063872, type internal
Redistributing via eigrp 10, ospf 10
Advertised by ospf 10 subnets
Las
Hello,
I would like to have a feedback concerning this issue because I have the
same on my environment.
I have had 3 cards fail in 3 seperate 6509 chassis (WS-SUP720-3B).
Mod Ports Card Type Model Serial
No.
--- - ---
60 matches
Mail list logo
