Re: [c-nsp] RIB_failure

Dear Cielieska, But is it recomended to change the administrative distance? Some guys suggested to add the network backdoor command to solve the problem which is better than changing the adminstrative distance. Thank you Suzan Cielieska Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Suzan,

Re: [c-nsp] EoMPLS and VPLS Load Balancing

Many tks Oli, In Cisco pages there is a note saying that PFCxx does not support load balancing at the tunnel ingress, so only one IGP path is used. This is the site: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/7600/ios/12.2SXF/configuration/g uide/pfc3mpls.html So I am wondering if at the end it is

[c-nsp] SXH1 on CCO

For those of you that have been anxiously waiting, SXH1 appeared last night on CCO. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine. _

Re: [c-nsp] Snmp restart on router

Yea, Absolutely correct, if you do "no snmp community string" the UDP listener exist and it has been verified by using "ip socket" and "show proc cpu | inc SNMP"... I tried to find some other ways but no luck The only answer is to restart router device. Regards, Masood Ahmad Shah -Or

Re: [c-nsp] BFD for static routes

Justin, You need to be aware that the CSCx "bugs" are not always considered bugs. Even new features are documented internally in CSCx entries. This is just a ticketing system the developers use. I would suggest that you just ask you account team to contact the right people in devel, and i

Re: [c-nsp] EoMPLS and VPLS Load Balancing

Alaerte Vidali wrote on Saturday, January 19, 2008 11:58 AM: > Tks Oli, > > Is it the same if instead of AtoM it is used VPLS? > That is, the same CEF hash mechanism is used to choose the path? > (without TE) Yes, as far as I know. To the forwarding plane, it's just a

Re: [c-nsp] 32 bits ASN on Cisco 6500 & 7600 platform

Support in both platforms is expected by end of this year. Other platforms may have it before that. Thanks, Suresh Sending from Treo -Original Message- From: Nicolas DEFFAYET [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 03:45 AM Pacific Standard Time To: cisco-ns

[c-nsp] 32 bits ASN on Cisco 6500 & 7600 platform

Hello, Anyone know when 32 bits ASN support will be available for: Cisco 6500 SUP2-MSFC2 Cisco 6500 SUP720-3BXL Cisco 7600 SUP720-3BXL Thank you very much -- Nicolas DEFFAYET ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nethe

Re: [c-nsp] EoMPLS and VPLS Load Balancing

Tks Oli, Is it the same if instead of AtoM it is used VPLS? That is, the same CEF hash mechanism is used to choose the path? (without TE) br, Alaerte > -Original Message- > From: ext Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) > Received: Sat Jan 19 10:18:39 EET 2008 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], cisco-nsp@puc

Re: [c-nsp] EoMPLS and VPLS Load Balancing

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <> wrote on Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:14 AM: > Hi, > > Considering the scenario, do you see a way to load balancing Layer 2 > VPN over MPLS (VPWS or old AtoM and VPLS? > (that is, one xconnect takes PE1-P1-PE2 and other takes PE1-P2-PE2) > > CE-PE1-P1-PE2CE