Gary Stanley wrote:
Greetings.
I have a 3550 doing basic layer3 routing on a single port to a 6509,
but the 3550's port (fa0/1) to the 6509 reports a low amount of
output buffer failures and underruns. I've seen these errors
before on another 3550 plugged up to the 6509, but I was unable
At 02:39 AM 10/20/2007, Adrian Minta wrote:
3550 is XL ?
No. 3550 EMI.
-- Gary Stanley ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED])
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
On (2007-10-19 20:22 -0400), Michael Giagnocavo wrote:
First, I heard that the 7200 with a NPE-G2 drops to 10% of spec (from
2Mpps to 200Kpps) with BGP and a few ACLs enabled. Is that accurate? Am I
crazy to think I could get 30% of spec out of any software router doing BGP
and
I didn't have a chance to try the modular code. I've never run modular
code and I didn't think I had time left in my window to work out any
kinks that might arise.
BFD support on SVIs is very important to us and others I think. The
ISRs just got BFD support in 12.4(15)T (15 or thereabouts).
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 09:39:16AM +0300, Adrian Minta wrote:
3550 is XL ?
There is no 3550XL.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany
G'day,
I built a new 3750 stack today and I couldn't manage to bring all
7 members in. The members are a 48-port gige, 2x24 port gige, 3 x 48 port
10/100 and
1 x 24 port 10/100. This failed switch is a 24-port gige 3750.
00:29:57: %STACKMGR-4-STACK_LINK_CHANGE: Stack Port 2 Switch 5 has changed
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 08:22:38PM -0400, Michael Giagnocavo wrote:
I have two performance questions.
First, I heard that the 7200 with a NPE-G2 drops to 10% of spec (from
2Mpps to 200Kpps) with BGP and a few ACLs enabled. Is that accurate? Am I
crazy to think I could
Pshem Kowalczyk wrote on Saturday, October 20, 2007 2:09 AM:
Hi,
We use route servers to mesh all the PEs. On the route server I can
see that all the prefixes (even without the RT, just with RD) are
learnt (or rather received), that causes unnecessary traffic amongst
the route servers.
Anyone have any thoughts on this? I also learned that my service policy is
not working, either, so suggestions to rectify it would be helpful.
I'm running c7600rsp72043-advipservicesk9-mz.122-33.SRB1
Regards,
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frank,
according do http://tinyurl.com/yrk2al, you cannot perform egress
policing on a Vlan, we can only apply egress policers on the ports,
which will likely not achieve what you want.
oli
Frank Bulk wrote on Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:09 PM:
Anyone have any thoughts on this? I
Duracom Lists wrote:
This is my first post on this list.
I have a Cisco 7206vxr Router which I am using to terminate DSL connections
on my ATM DS3 via PPPoE. I have everything setup and working properly, but
I am wanting to use my DHCP server instead of using the IP Pool on the cisco
But I have an RSP 720 with a DFC3C. According to:
http://tinyurl.com/u4rxr
Aggregate rate-limiting location: Ingress port or VLAN and egress VLAN or
Layer 3 port
and
http://tinyurl.com/ypecm7
PFC QoS supports VLAN-based QoS with DFC3s installed.
You can attach policy maps to Layer 3
Hi All,
{cut}
And this setup works? ;-) Which IOS do you run on the PEs? Out of
interest: Can you send the config of two of these PEs which peer to me?
Don't think we test/support setups like this.
So far seems to be doing what's expected. Prefixes are exchanged
between the PEs. Default gets
13 matches
Mail list logo
