Once you get one and understand the cabling, then you are good.
On Jan 25, 2008 5:13 PM, Andrew Alston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We just bought 4 16 slot CRS-1's. Cisco would not sell them to us without
> Cisco CA involvement. But the involvement was purely on the installation
> and deploym
We just bought 4 16 slot CRS-1's. Cisco would not sell them to us without
Cisco CA involvement. But the involvement was purely on the installation
and deployment side and has nothing to do with the configurations and future
running of them.
Thanks
Andrew
-Original Message-
From: [EMAI
Hm... I can enter 5 "snmp-server host" commands before I get the error.
It's CSCsg87808 by the way, and 7.2(3) has it resolved. :-)
Regards,
Peter
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 16:18 +, Ramcharan, Vijay A wrote:
> 7.2.2 is subject to an SNMP bug that only allows you to enter 2
> snmp-server host com
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 14:29 -0500, Matthew Crocker wrote:
>
> Ok, thanks everyone for your help. I'm getting there.
>
> If I assign IPs directly to the interfaces I won't use SVIs so the
> switch shouldn't have a problem with what I'm doing.
AFAIK the L3-switches won't care if you use SVIs or
Matthew Crocker wrote:
>Anyone
> know the difference between a 3750G and a 4948?
The 4948 can "absolutely, positively" run wire rate full-duplex gigabit
on 48 ports unless you bell-and-whistle the configuration enough to
process switch.
Jeff
___
> I don't know if the secret key has been compromised, or if the cloners
> just have access to a really large sample set, but these days they seem to
> have no problem defeating the check and producing Cisco-branded optics
> which work in any system. Many optic vendors will even give you a choic
> I don't know if the secret key has been compromised, or if the cloners
> just have access to a really large sample set, but these days they
> seem to have no problem defeating the check and producing Cisco-branded
> optics which work in any system.
Back when I was doing my "pre-ebay" research (w
There are thriving markets for remote workers in the software field but
its far less common for infrastructure support.
Regarding accessibility in the event of BGP troubles all of my customers
have a little collection of static /32s on their border routers coming back
to a couple of different
Absolutely agreed.
Order what you need.
If you need help down the line, it's not going to cost any more.
If you fear that, get the number in advance then hold them to it later.
If you're buying this level of gear anyway, you'd be hard pressed to not get
what you mostly want.
>>> Jared Mauch <[EMA
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 07:49:22PM +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 12:47 -0500, Aaron wrote:
> > I'd look at assigning /31s instead. Most recent version of code support it
> > now.
>
> IOS 12.2(35)SE5 does for the 3750s yeah, but since Ethernet strictly
> speaking never is a po
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:39:29AM -0800, Steve Feldman wrote:
> I don't think that's enough to tell.
>
> We once got a batch of SFPs which seemed to work just fine, until
> we plugged more than one into the same router. It turned out they
> had identical serial numbers
Cisco branded optics
Hey Craig,
On Jan 25, 2008, at 6:16 AM, Craig Allen wrote:
> I have numerous Cisco 3750-48-PS-S in stacks consisting of either 2
> members or 8 members; current IOS is C3750-IPSERVICESK9-M, Version
> 12.2(40)SE.
>
> A simple input service-policy has been created to mark traffic
> entering
> the
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 11:49:49AM -0700, Greg Schwimer wrote:
> We've been looking at the CRS-1 for a while now as our next generation
> routing platform. However, my Cisco account team is going out of their way
> to tell me we need, must have, can't ever get it to work without
> professional ser
Ok, thanks everyone for your help. I'm getting there.
If I assign IPs directly to the interfaces I won't use SVIs so the
switch shouldn't have a problem with what I'm doing.
Looking at pricing now, the WS-C3750G-48TS-E is $5k more than a WS-
C4948-E.The 3750 has StackWise, the 4948 has
Responding to my own post... not good.
Sorry, not enough coffee yet this morning. Missed the it runs without serv
unsupp...
If you did not buy it from a known source, or got it at a super bargain
price, I'd be weary. I'd treat it as an unsupported gbic unless I knew
better. Granted the worst (hop
On Jan 25, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Fredrik Jacobsson wrote:
> Hi!
>
> How do I tell if SFP's are counterfeit or not?
>
> Is it enough that it runs fine without
> service unsupported transceiver
> and
> disable detect cause gbic-invalid?
I don't think that's enough to tell.
We once got a batch of SFPs
>> I plan on using the switch as '48 port GigE routers' assigning a /30
>> to each GigE port on the switch with an uplink port going to my
>> 'core'
>> and talking OSPF with my 'border' routers (GSR8 & Juniper J6350). My
>> border speaks BGP with my peers and OSPF internally. The 3750s will
>>
We've been looking at the CRS-1 for a while now as our next generation
routing platform. However, my Cisco account team is going out of their way
to tell me we need, must have, can't ever get it to work without
professional services. I don't get it.
I understand that there are some major differe
Seven months ago I limped home to momma, nursing a back injury and
intending to help get the farm ready for sale, as she is ready to move to
town. Now that I've been here a while I'm inclined to stick around, but not
even the ISPs up here are multihomed.
Right now I help drive a regional sized
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 12:47 -0500, Aaron wrote:
> I'd look at assigning /31s instead. Most recent version of code support it
> now.
IOS 12.2(35)SE5 does for the 3750s yeah, but since Ethernet strictly
speaking never is a point-to-point interface, I don't think Cisco
supports it. Configuring it giv
>Is it enough that it runs fine without
>service unsupported transceiver
>and
>disable detect cause gbic-invalid?
If your gbic requires those to run then it probably isnt a "counterfeit"
supported transciever, it is just flat out unsupported. That said, a few
that we use at work are unsupported an
I'd look at assigning /31s instead. Most recent version of code support it
now.
On Jan 25, 2008 11:37 AM, Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can someone explain the difference between these two switches? Is it
> only the uplink speed?
>
> WS-C3750E-48TD-E (10 Gig Uplinks)
> WS-C3750
Hi Matt,
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 11:37 -0500, Matthew Crocker wrote:
> Can someone explain the difference between these two switches? Is it
> only the uplink speed?
>
> WS-C3750E-48TD-E (10 Gig Uplinks)
> WS-C3750G-48TS-E (4 x 1Gig Uplinks)
>
> The 'G' model is about $3k less than the 'E' mode
Hi!
How do I tell if SFP's are counterfeit or not?
Is it enough that it runs fine without
service unsupported transceiver
and
disable detect cause gbic-invalid?
sho idprom on a C3560 with a GLC-T shows manufacturer "Methode Elec."
Thanks
/Fredrik
___
Second the bugginess of 8.0
I had two problems, one was with an ACL where a permit entry was not
being hit, fixed by a reboot and the other as follows:
Inside network: 192.168.100.0/24
DMZ network: 172.16.0.0/24
No nat in place.
I could ping from 192.168.100.66 to any host in the 172.16.0.0 netw
Can someone explain the difference between these two switches? Is it
only the uplink speed?
WS-C3750E-48TD-E (10 Gig Uplinks)
WS-C3750G-48TS-E (4 x 1Gig Uplinks)
The 'G' model is about $3k less than the 'E' model.
I plan on using the switch as '48 port GigE routers' assigning a /30
to ea
I suggest you consult to ipexpert.com. They are going well for such
trainings since years...
Regards,
Masood Ahmad Shah
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Felix Nkansah
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 7:11 PM
To: Cisco certification; cisco-ns
7.2.2 is subject to an SNMP bug that only allows you to enter 2
snmp-server host commands. Any more and you are prevented from saving
the configuration to NVRAM.
asa-fw1# sh ver
Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance Software Version 7.2(2)
Compiled on Wed 22-Nov-06 14:16 by builders
System image f
Hi,
I could use a hint to start nailing this down.
We have two 7604/Sup720s with 12.2(18)SXF7 here, doing a pretty similar
traffic load (about 2-3 Gbit/s aggregate), and similar traffic pattern.
IPv4, IPv6, MPLS, netflow export for IPv4.
One of the boxes is running at 1-2% CPU, the other one is
Jacob,
> Can someone explain to me something in regards to the 3845 and SDM? I have a
> new 3845 and it came default with a username and password of cisco. It also
> comes across saying something about using SDM to configure it. Is SDM
> included with the router? Is there a bin file I have to l
HI,
I am interested in a CCVP-level hands-on bootcamp in Dubai, India or South
Africa. My sponsor is interested in a training with a lot of hands-on
exposure.
Has any of you gotten experience taking up training in this area in any of
the locations specified.
Please let me know which training ins
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 07:24:25PM +0700, a. rahman isnaini r.sutan wrote:
> Both direction, cat 2950.
To repeat my questions, with a few more words:
"Which of the directions do you have problems with the load distribution?"
(it needs to be tuned on the sender side, and we're not the Junipe
I inherited the box, and it's soon to be taken out of service... It's been
stable since I've been here (November), so it can't be that bad for our
application.
Thanks everyone else for their responses.
Brad Beck
Senior Network Engineer
Meritain Health
300 Corporate Parkway
Amherst, NY 14226
7
Thanks for all the responses and advise...I have started reading in the
evening for my first exam (BCMSN)...
Many thanks,
Mo
-Original Message-
From: Scott McGrath [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 January 2008 13:07
To: Mohamed Ahmad
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp]
> Hi Gian,
>
>
> Both direction, output/input direction.
> And currently working on two ports.
>
> Is there any specific additional commands on catalyst except belows :
>
> interface FastEthernet0/23
> duplex full
> speed 100
> port group 1
> switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> switch
Hello,
I have numerous Cisco 3750-48-PS-S in stacks consisting of either 2
members or 8 members; current IOS is C3750-IPSERVICESK9-M, Version
12.2(40)SE.
A simple input service-policy has been created to mark traffic entering
the port - classification is matched using extended access-lists.
a. rahman isnaini r.sutan ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> Any suggestion will be very appreciated.
>
> Here's the scheme :
> Ports aggregation with trunking was success between Juniper - Cisco
> Catalyst, but i'm having problem with the load that is not balanced on
> each port.
I think in output directi
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:02:36AM +0700, a. rahman isnaini r.sutan wrote:
> Any suggestion will be very appreciated.
>
> Here's the scheme :
> Ports aggregation with trunking was success between Juniper - Cisco
> Catalyst, but i'm having problem with the load that is not balanced on
> each
On Thu, January 24, 2008 7:28 pm, Jeff Kell wrote:
> Hey, it beats "unkeepalive all" :-)
Have you been playing with Vendor-H? That sounds reminiscent of their
immortal 'rip work' and 'reset recycle-bin'.
Regards,
Tim.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cis
Has anyone real world experience of using these 2 features (Reflexive ACLs or
CBAC) on 6500 with
MSFC2 (SUP2) or MSFC3 (SUP720)?
If i understand right (according do the documentation) both are processed in
software in the MSFC,
so that's going to hurt a little.
Are there any hidden limitation
I'd recommend 7.2(2)
I've got it running on a few 5510's that have been up without a crash
for about a year, 8.0 does bring some really nice new features but
unless you need them i'd steer clear of it for now as i've encountered
a few annoying bugs.
Cheers
Ben
On 25/01/2008, at 6:57 PM, W
Hey,
I'm implementing a ASA5510 for L2L VPN, EzVPN, VPN Client and other
basic firewall functions, can the list recommend a stable version of
code for my application?
thanks for your time!
W
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https:/
> Welcome to BGP.
Thank you.
>
> A BGP speaker is only going to advertise its best external paths via
> iBGP. If it has selected your other BGP speaker as its best path, it
> will not (currently) advertise the externals that are not the best path.
So there is some sort of withdrawal mechanism:
43 matches
Mail list logo
