Hi folks! We're trying to determine a low cost solution to bridge
802.11Q vlans over the internet between two locations. We are thinking
of using IOS with bridge groups and a IPIP or GRE tunnel between the
two locations. Encryption is not required.
Peak traffic is about 50Mbps and will be on fast
After doing basic configuration of a 5510 w/CSC20 for a customer
network, our customer has come up with some wishes about specific
filtering options that I don't see any way of implementing with the
CSC's rather limited filtering options. Even with the most current 6.2
(1599) version of the CSC
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
> I was hoping someone was going to say that Cisco has this bit of hidden
> documentation that it's just 13 A per 3845 for 48 VDC fed DC power
> supplies, whether you have one or two of them. But no one has said so,
> so we need to budget 26 A. =
whats the output of sho proc cpu sorted 5min look like?
On 9/11/07, Wyatt Mattias Ishmael Jovial Gyllenvarg <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> We have a strange behavior on a 3560G that is running IBGP + some EBGP.
>
> It is a route-reflector client to our one core machine and it takes
Thanks.
The manual also says to power them with 30 A circuits. Of course, that's
not actual draw.
I was hoping someone was going to say that Cisco has this bit of hidden
documentation that it's just 13 A per 3845 for 48 VDC fed DC power supplies,
whether you have one or two of them. But no on
I'll take my DC amp meter to work tomorrow and check our 3845s. I have
3 that are DC powered.
Justin
Frank Bulk wrote:
> Our installers are balking at the 19 W requirements, per DC power supply,
> for the two 3845 routers we purchased. Since we have a redundant power
> supplies, it looks like
My bad, I wrote watts when I should have written amps, and it looks like 13
A, not 19 A, as you said.
It's just that compared to the other telco equipment they install, these
'data' devices suck a lot more power. It looks like we're going to have to
put in another power bay as this pushes us over
Chris Griffin writes:
> Lately we have been having performance issues with SNMP queries to
> Sup720 based systems when gathering Layer 2 information (ifOperStatus
> and several layer 2 traffic counters). SNMP for these elements will be
> dropped for long periods of time (5-15 minutes). This no
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Our installers are balking at the 19 W requirements, per DC power supply,
> for the two 3845 routers we purchased. Since we have a redundant power
> supplies, it looks like a total of 4 power supplies totaling 76 W.
Hmm, as far as I can read from:
http:/
Our installers are balking at the 19 W requirements, per DC power supply,
for the two 3845 routers we purchased. Since we have a redundant power
supplies, it looks like a total of 4 power supplies totaling 76 W.
Are there any shortcuts here? The documentation, both online and printed,
is pretty
Lately we have been having performance issues with SNMP queries to
Sup720 based systems when gathering Layer 2 information (ifOperStatus
and several layer 2 traffic counters). SNMP for these elements will be
dropped for long periods of time (5-15 minutes). This normally happens
during network
Karol Mares wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 9/11/07, Gerald Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Karol Mares wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 9/10/07, Gerald Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gerald Krause wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a 7206VXR as LNS under 12.2(28)SB6 and wonder if anyone
> experien
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Lixfeld) [Mon 10 Sep 2007, 20:45 CEST]:
>Has anyone used the connect command in this train of code? I'm
I think current list wisdom is to try 12.2SB or 12.4 mainline for this
router.
-- Niels.
--
___
cisco-nsp m
Hi,
On 9/11/07, Karol Mares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/11/07, Mark Pace Balzan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > I have a number of cisco and non-cisco OSPF speakers on an ethernet lan
> > that have been working ok for a while.
> >
> > I changed switch and added a new
Hi,
On 9/11/07, Gerald Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Karol Mares wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 9/10/07, Gerald Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Gerald Krause wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I have a 7206VXR as LNS under 12.2(28)SB6 and wonder if anyone
> >>> experience a strange ICMP behavi
Mark Pace Balzan wrote:
>
>
>>> Check out the MTU and physical counter parameters on interfaces
> connecting OSPF neighbours - most likely causing this behaviour
>
> No reason to change the MTU. All I did was move the physical cable from
> one ethernet switch to another.
>
> No err
Especially considering that the 3845 is only capable of 256Mbps.
I'd recommend a 7201 or a short-stack 7600.
Justin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And to complement the other responses. 3800's most likely won't cut it.
> Our 3845 goes up to 45% cpu on a single 1gbit tcp stream. I'd hate to
> think a
Karol Mares wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 9/10/07, Gerald Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Gerald Krause wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have a 7206VXR as LNS under 12.2(28)SB6 and wonder if anyone
>>> experience a strange ICMP behaviour regarding fragmentation/MTU
>>> bounderies. It seems that the router does
Can anyone point me to a list of 7600 linecards that are supported (or
not) by the RSP720 line? We're working on a trade-in deal with our
Sup720-3BXLs (SRB1) and we want to confirm compatibility with our
existing modules before we get too far into this process. In particular
I want to confirm
Folks,
before I get flamed:
> would the general public on this list agree and say that with us approaching
> 256k routes the use of the smaller 65xx based boxes makes only very limited
> sense? I cannot help but think a M5 or M7i used or something is more up to
> that task than any 6503/6504/6524
>> Check out the MTU and physical counter parameters on interfaces
connecting OSPF neighbours - most likely causing this behaviour
No reason to change the MTU. All I did was move the physical cable from
one ethernet switch to another.
No errors, collisions etc... On the inteface
Mikael, All,
[...]
> 2.3 Mpps with a NPE-G2 at full routing table, I don't even think Cisco
> markering would say that should work.
>
> I'd recommend a used Cisco 7304 instead, or a 7604 with Sup720 and a 6724
> LC, but that's also a bit overkill.
would the general public on this list agree an
On 9/11/07, Mark Pace Balzan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I have a number of cisco and non-cisco OSPF speakers on an ethernet lan
> that have been working ok for a while.
>
> I changed switch and added a new router (new boxes are cisco kit), and
> Im getting the following between some n
Hi,
On 9/10/07, Gerald Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Gerald Krause wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a 7206VXR as LNS under 12.2(28)SB6 and wonder if anyone
> > experience a strange ICMP behaviour regarding fragmentation/MTU
> > bounderies. It seems that the router doesn't generate appropriate
Hi,
I have a number of cisco and non-cisco OSPF speakers on an ethernet lan
that have been working ok for a while.
I changed switch and added a new router (new boxes are cisco kit), and
Im getting the following between some neighbours and the new box:
000799: Sep 11 07:26:14.252 CET: OSPF: Kill
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, varaillon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are filtering and rate limiting icmp traffic on our border router to let
> in&out:
>
> Echo
> Echo-reply
> Unreachable
> Time-exceeded
I allow:
echo reply
echo request
Inbound can't fragment
Inbound Sourch quench
ttl exceeded
general parameter
> We are filtering and rate limiting icmp traffic on our border router
to let
> in&out:
>
> Echo
> Echo-reply
> Unreachable
> Time-exceeded
>
> What about icmp to our firewall's interfaces?
>
> Shouldn't I allow the firewall to respond to or send those icmp
messages as
> well?
>
>
Hi,
We are filtering and rate limiting icmp traffic on our border router to let
in&out:
Echo
Echo-reply
Unreachable
Time-exceeded
What about icmp to our firewall's interfaces?
Shouldn't I allow the firewall to respond to or send those icmp messages as
well?
What would be the best current pract
Hi all
We have a strange behavior on a 3560G that is running IBGP + some EBGP.
It is a route-reflector client to our one core machine and it takes in
a few EBGP peers.
Now we want a certain set of prefixes to go another way then the core
node calculates as "best".
We there for setup a peer with
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:48:31AM +0200, Gerald Krause wrote:
> > I've seen massive problems with IPv6 MTU and CEF on a 7301 with
> > 12.2(31)SB2 - short version: the router seems to incorrectly count
[..]
> > No ICMP either, packet just gone.
>
> Sigh, I thought about testing 12.2(31)SB7 b
Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 08:55:35PM +0200, Gerald Krause wrote:
>> The only problem with our config could be the fact that we have
>> configured a MTU of 1530 byte (because of MPLS) on the FEs. But even
>> if this could be problematic I would expect that in the case th
31 matches
Mail list logo
