Got my answers... thanks folks;)
-Original Message-
From: John van Oppen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 1:34 AM
To: Paul Stewart; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] OC3 Throughput
Max it can do or max you should do to keep service from turning
Max it can do or max you should do to keep service from turning nasty?
John van Oppen
Spectrum Networks LLC
206.973.8302 (Direct)
206.973.8300 (main office)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 7
Hi folks...
Looking for input on *realworld* maximum throughput on an OC-3 circuit?
This is a Cisco 7206VXR with a OC-3 card with l2tp tunnels coming into the
router servicing PPPOE clients over ADSL.
Thanks,
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@pu
If you are trying to influence the return-traffic from cogent to go to
you via another upstream and not level3, you can use the level3
community that will prepend a few times to cogent. We do this with
great success as we have three providers and try to keep some tier 1s
coming in each of them ba
The prepeding should have nothing to do with your lack of connectivity
through Cogent. All the prepending would do is possibly make another route
look more desireable due to the as-path. They already append their ASN when
you pass through their AS.
As a second note... are you allowing UDP ports fo
Anyone know what the difference is between the SPA-2XGE and the SPA-2X1GE-V2?
Will both work in a 6500/SIP-400 combo? I'm assuming yes, but can't
find any docs that indicate the differences if any.
Thanks,
Tim:>
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@pu
Would be interesting to try... but when you are within an AS there are many
other factors at play... I kinda doubt it would work.
-Jonathan
-Original Message-
From: Tim Durack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 11:12 AM
To: Jonathan Crawford
Cc: Cisco-nsp
Subject:
We get transit from Level3. I was hoping if I manipulate the right
community I could influence the Level3/Cogent peering making Cogent
less preferred.
Tim:>
On Nov 16, 2007 2:03 PM, Jonathan Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If that is your desire, then prepend away. I would not be surprised
If that is your desire, then prepend away. I would not be surprised if you
need to prepend more than one on their link to push the route down the
prefered list.
If you peer directly with Level3/Cogent then you could just prepend your ASN
a few times on the announcements for 208.74.141.0/24 to them
On Nov 16, 2007 1:07 PM, Jonathan Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The prepeding should have nothing to do with your lack of connectivity
> through Cogent. All the prepending would do is possibly make another route
> look more desireable due to the as-path. They already append their ASN when
>
Welcome to the limitations of TCP using standard window sizes. There
is tons of documentation out on the net on how to tweak TCP
connections to maximize throughput. WAN accel appliances are very
good at doing this as well, if you don't want to mess around with
tweaking individual hosts.
Having difficulties with routing through a Level3 circuit:
Traceroute using 67.99.58.158 source address:
RTR-3#traceroute 38.102.194.142
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to HudsonValleyDataNet.demarc.cogentco.com (38.102.194.142)
1 67.99.58.157 [AS 6395] 8 msec 4 msec 4 msec
> I have gear in Amsterdam and in San Jose. Pushing log files from
> Amsterdam to San Jose through rsync seems to top out at 7Mbps even
> though the box doing the push is pushing much more out to the Internet.
> If I run several rsync's it goes quicker so I know I have the bandwidth.
>
> Wh
Thanks, all, for the replies and help.
I was able to resolve this by configuring the CE to peer with the *primary*
ip address on the PE loopback interface. It would not peer with a secondary
ip address on that interface, even with "disable-connected-check" and
"ebgp-multihop 3" on the CE and "u
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 03:37:48PM +, Chris Caputo wrote:
> In both cases, the participants are running Cisco routers that have
> customer ATM based DSL circuits on other interfaces.
>
> "no ip mobile arp" an "no ip proxy-arp" on the ATM or IX facing
> interfaces have not stopped the ap
We have two participants at our IX who are spewing out broadcast ARP
"reply" packets onto the fabric.
In both cases, the participants are running Cisco routers that have
customer ATM based DSL circuits on other interfaces.
"no ip mobile arp" an "no ip proxy-arp" on the ATM or IX facing
interfa
That's correct. The FWSM is just a (fast) PIX on a blade that is
connected to the switch with a hidden 6-port Etherchannel. You
configure the VLANs on this hidden trunk (po272) with the
firewall commands on the SUP. As far as routing and any other
traffic, consider it as a totally separate devic
Vikas, I've found it immensely helpful to think of the FWSM as a
separate device (as in PIX) that is just connected to the switch by
means of the associated VLANs rather than physical cables. In my early
experience with the FWSM I had trouble separating the FWSM from the
switch when thinking of tra
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007, matthew zeier wrote:
>
> I have gear in Amsterdam and in San Jose. Pushing log files from
> Amsterdam to San Jose through rsync seems to top out at 7Mbps even
> though the box doing the push is pushing much more out to the Internet.
> If I run several rsync's it goes qu
First guess is probably latency since you mentioned that you can push
more if you do several sessions. Do a bandwidth/delay/product
calculation to figure out what you can reasonably expect for a single
session given the latency and bandwidth between the two sites.
I used a similar calculation to
Latency limits TCP throughput. I am working with an application now that is
maxing out at 4-5Mbps over a link with 80-120 ms latency cross continent. One
way to improve throughput is to adjust buffers/window sizes on the
sender/receiver machines and/or use a WAN acceleration product like Cisco W
I have gear in Amsterdam and in San Jose. Pushing log files from
Amsterdam to San Jose through rsync seems to top out at 7Mbps even
though the box doing the push is pushing much more out to the Internet.
If I run several rsync's it goes quicker so I know I have the bandwidth.
What's limitin
On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 12:28 +0530, Vikas Sharma wrote:
> The link shows me the option of configuring multiple SVIs but my
> question is if i assigned these vlans to VRF created on 6509, will
> fwsm understand this?
I don't know if it's depends on HW/Supervisor/IOS, but yes, you can put
your loca
23 matches
Mail list logo
