Re: [c-nsp] Dialup problems on a AS5300

Justin Shore wrote: > We appear to be having dialup issues on one of our AS5300s. > Unfortunately they are not covered under a SmartNet (and can't be added > to a contract beginning Summer 06). I've been hoping these things would > keep on working until we could kill our dialup offering but app

Re: [c-nsp] Dialup problems on a AS5300

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/108/mica-hw-ts-17882.html Regards, Masood Ahmad Shah -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Shore Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:16 AM To: 'Cisco-nsp' Subject: [c-nsp] Dialup problems on a AS5300 We

[c-nsp] Dialup problems on a AS5300

We appear to be having dialup issues on one of our AS5300s. Unfortunately they are not covered under a SmartNet (and can't be added to a contract beginning Summer 06). I've been hoping these things would keep on working until we could kill our dialup offering but apparently this one may be sho

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming with 2801

Nate Carlson wrote: > On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> 128 is fine for default routes. If you want to get a little fancy but >> not go full routes, your upstreams may have the option to send you >> only customer routes with a default route. (Even a partial feed may >> require some tr

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming with 2801

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Seth Mattinen wrote: > 128 is fine for default routes. If you want to get a little fancy but > not go full routes, your upstreams may have the option to send you only > customer routes with a default route. (Even a partial feed may require > some trimming with 128 - not sure

[c-nsp] UBR 7246 Loadsharing example.. please..

Dears Does any one of you has try the cable load-balance group ?, I need to apply it on one uptream port But I have a lot of doubts about how to enable it. If someone please could send me one configuration example of this command I will appreciate it Thanks. ___

Re: [c-nsp] Multihoming with 2801

Pablo Almido wrote: > Hi All, I am planning to configure Multihoming for my network in my > job, I have a class C /24 to announce, we have recently getting our > own ASN, currently we have 1 router 2801, I want to take only a > default route from each provider, and announnce my network to each >

[c-nsp] Rttmon/SAA

Hello, Would anyone know if RTTmon application jitter packets sourced from logical or physical interfaces and destined to the same are process switched? I am thinking they likely are, but if someone could confirm that would be great. Thanks, Tim ___ ci

[c-nsp] Layer 2 transparent tunnelling options with POS OC3 with APS.

Ok, I've come to a minor logjam in trying to get a layer 2 transparent tunnel working from one site to another. Layer 2 transparency is required for VMware VMotion between two ESX hosts, one on one end and one on the other. The folks on this list being the experts in network service provisionin

Re: [c-nsp] OC3 Throughput

Clayton Zekelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > An NPE-G1 easily handles 2 full ATM-OC3's worth of L2TP tunnels. > > We have several of these in production, and typically hit around 60% > CPU utilization. My experience with both NPE-G1s and 7301s does not parallel this. Could be an artifact of th

Re: [c-nsp] OC3 Throughput

An NPE-G1 easily handles 2 full ATM-OC3's worth of L2TP tunnels. We have several of these in production, and typically hit around 60% CPU utilization. - Original Message --- Subject: Re: [c-nsp] OC3 Throughput From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 26

Re: [c-nsp] OC3 Throughput

Of course, the *real* answer which everyone seems to be overlooking is that you're terminating PPPoE-over-L2TP per Paul's original mail. The encap/deencap is the limiting factor, and you're gonna pummel any known NPE up to and including the NPE-G1 before you hit the link speed limit with ATM or P

Re: [c-nsp] netflow

Ivan Gasparik wrote: > you can decrease the SP load by adding a DFC's to your line cards. DFC > will do gathering statistics from forwarding hardware and populating > netflow entries in netflow cache. all this is load caused by > interrupts as you can see it now in SP CPU utilization. > SP will

Re: [c-nsp] netflow

you can decrease the SP load by adding a DFC's to your line cards. DFC will do gathering statistics from forwarding hardware and populating netflow entries in netflow cache. all this is load caused by interrupts as you can see it now in SP CPU utilization. SP will then do only the export work -

Re: [c-nsp] SPA-2XGE vs SPA-2X1GE-V2

On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 10:39 +0100, Ivan Gasparik wrote: > both SPA's are supported in SIP-400, but SPA-2X1GE-V2 works only > inside 7600 chassis. it's not supported in 6500's. > this quite important information you can only find in release notes to > 12.2SR: I haven't tried it, and Arie seemed t

Re: [c-nsp] SPA-2XGE vs SPA-2X1GE-V2

hi, both SPA's are supported in SIP-400, but SPA-2X1GE-V2 works only inside 7600 chassis. it's not supported in 6500's. this quite important information you can only find in release notes to 12.2SR: http://cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6922/prod_release_note09186a00806c096f.html ivan On Sunday