On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>>> They are a little pricey, but they have a lot of them in stock and got them
>>> to me over night.
>>
>> Wow, $32 each, plus shipping I assume. There's got to be a better source.
>
> $19.00 for the half-watt version. This is way more than adequate for a
Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Nick Voth wrote:
>
>> If anyone needs a good source for them, we found the 75 ohm versions here:
>>
>> http://www.smelectronics.us/bnc,fattenuators.htm
>>
>> They are a little pricey, but they have a lot of them in stock and got them
>> to me over night.
>
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Nick Voth wrote:
> If anyone needs a good source for them, we found the 75 ohm versions here:
>
> http://www.smelectronics.us/bnc,fattenuators.htm
>
> They are a little pricey, but they have a lot of them in stock and got them
> to me over night.
Wow, $32 each, plus shipping
> Nick Voth wrote:
Hello folks,
I need another set of eyes on this. We have a new channelized DS3
plugged in > to a Cisco 7206-VXR with a PA-MC-T3 card. We can't seem to
>>> get rid of
the Line Code Violations and P-bit Coding Violations. See what we've done
below thi
On 2/1/08, Gregory Boehnlein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >> Try putting a 12 db attenuator on the transmit portion, then re-try
> > your
> > >> loopback. We've found that the PA-MC-T3 cards tend to overdrive the
> > DS3 a
> > >> bit, and the only way that we've been able to get rid of the erro
On Feb 1, 2008 9:22 AM, Vincent De Keyzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I have a BGP router with 2 eBGP peers (upstreams). This morning one of
> the two upstreams (say A) had a scheduled maintenance, and most of the
> outgoing traffic went to B. But when A came back up 4 hours longer
Hi Jeff,
I still did not have opportunity to test it over L3. However, I tested
it over L2 VPNs. The result was pretty good, specially when using the
more complex algorithm available in the command "ip multicast
multipath...".
Each IPTV program took a different interface when using the following:
Vincent De Keyzer <> wrote on Friday, February 01, 2008 4:22 PM:
> Hello list,
>
> I have a BGP router with 2 eBGP peers (upstreams). This morning one of
> the two upstreams (say A) had a scheduled maintenance, and most of the
> outgoing traffic went to B. But when A came back up 4 hours longer,
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 18:04 +0100, Gabor Ivanszky wrote:
> Peter Rathlev wrote:
> > If you only use these networks as OSPF transport networks, it's not a
> > big problem if they're black holed. Since they're not destinations,
> > neither clients nor servers ever see them in anything but a trace.
>
Dan Letkeman wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a 2621 lying around that I would like to use as a transparent
> bridge and enable ip flow exports on.
>
> So the basic idea is to bridge the two ethernet interfaces, then put
> the device inline with a network.
>
> Can this be done?
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
> __
> >> Try putting a 12 db attenuator on the transmit portion, then re-try
> your
> >> loopback. We've found that the PA-MC-T3 cards tend to overdrive the
> DS3 a
> >> bit, and the only way that we've been able to get rid of the errors
> is
> >> attenuating the transmit load.
> >
> > Interesting, you
Simon Lockhart wrote:
> Noticed that 12.2(44)SE was recently released for the Cat3550 switch, and
> feature navigator lists a whole load of IPv6 support. Yay!
>
> However, it doesn't seem to work very well...
>
> interface Loopback0
> no ip address
> ipv6 address 2001:4B10::100/128
> ipv6 enab
Actually you might be pleasantly surprised with an IPv6 attack on a 3550
- I suspect the IPv4 traffic would just keep on truckin', less any routing
updates that might arrive during the event. I had a customer with about 14k
public IP addresses passing through a 3550. The machine was crazy stress
Hello,
I have a 2621 lying around that I would like to use as a transparent
bridge and enable ip flow exports on.
So the basic idea is to bridge the two ethernet interfaces, then put
the device inline with a network.
Can this be done?
Thanks,
Dan
___
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Nick Voth wrote:
>> Try putting a 12 db attenuator on the transmit portion, then re-try your
>> loopback. We've found that the PA-MC-T3 cards tend to overdrive the DS3 a
>> bit, and the only way that we've been able to get rid of the errors is
>> attenuating the transmit load.
On (2008-02-01 14:40 +0100), Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> Alternaively you could choose 3560 or 3750 series (not ME) that is
> capable for IPv6 routing in a limited way. No BGP IPv6 support... When I
> asked about the IPv6 BGP support plan - no plan currently. This is very
> bad :(
Yes, I've been r
Peter Rathlev wrote:
That makes sense. But our experience in a real life scenario is that the
partitioning of "OSPF speaking transport network" creates the blackhole
as well. I will try to build this in the lab. May the root cause of the
blackhole wasn't the network separation, but something
We've tried that with 3750ME, and the half a million bugs and
architectural flaws made us drop that line of devices out of MPLS
altogether. Keeping the PW with L2 on 3750ME will make your customer
happier.
I don't know yet the price point and MPLS FCS for Juniper EX, but if
it's really cheaper tha
Guten Tag Vincent De Keyzer,
am Freitag, 1. Februar 2008 um 16:22 schrieben Sie:
> Hello list,
> I have a BGP router with 2 eBGP peers (upstreams). This morning one of
> the two upstreams (say A) had a scheduled maintenance, and most of the
> outgoing traffic went to B. But when A came back up 4
I set up a Facebook profile with my pictures, videos and events and I want to
add you as a friend so you can see it. First, you need to join Facebook! Once
you join, you can also create your own profile.
Thanks,
Junaid
Here's the link:
http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=1011954991&k=SYG5ZZPYWXTBZ1
Hello list,
I have a BGP router with 2 eBGP peers (upstreams). This morning one of
the two upstreams (say A) had a scheduled maintenance, and most of the
outgoing traffic went to B. But when A came back up 4 hours longer,
outgoing traffic mostly kept going through B, and traffic towards A did
Hi,
If you just need L4 access-lists, like blocking all port 80/tcp traffic
and not all HTTP (which could use another port and thus needs a more
thorough examination of the flows), you can use regular hardware based
access-lists on a Sup720/PFC3 and all will be well.
If you need inspection (like
Hi Michel,
Using CoPP protects the RP, i.e. traffic that the PFC decides has to be
punted to the MSFC. Here's a simplified and somewhat wrong picture of
how the forwarding paths work:
Interfaces RP
Gi4/1 --\ +-+ CoPP +--+
Gi4/2 ---+--| PFC |
Konstantin Barinov <> wrote on Friday, February 01, 2008 2:48 PM:
> Hello!
>
> Which platform will be able to filter more than 2 Gbit/sec bandwidth
> by packet contents? For example, I need to drop all outgoing http and
> udp according to some rules. Sup32-PISA can only do up to 2Gbps. What
> is
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. We use these for layer 2
everywhere. Being a US govt network, we're required to have IPv6
support on those as well. V6 management is all we really need on 3550.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf O
Though you using 2 different VTP domains/VLAN databases, are the VLANs
per business unit at least unique so the VLAN databases don't have
overlapping VLANs?
What's the purpose of interconnecting the 4 switches?
What are the connections between the 4 switches? access port (same vlan
on each sid
Thanks for the responses I received on and off list to this post.
Consensus is: 2611XM will not do 10Mbps or above.
I'll look into a 18xx or 28xx upgrade.
Thanks!
Adam
- Original Message -
From: "Justin Shore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Adam Greene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday
I am interested in this feature, also, so asking around I've heard something
about VSS in NX-OS 4.1, maybe in the summer (?!?) -
On Thursday 31 January 2008 15:53:54 Tim Durack wrote:
> No mention of "VSS" after they've been talking
> it up recently. Nice if they can make it all work reliably.
>
Hello!
Which platform will be able to filter more than 2 Gbit/sec bandwidth
by packet contents? For example, I need to drop all outgoing http and
udp according to some rules. Sup32-PISA can only do up to 2Gbps. What
is the next step, load balance between them only?
br
--
Konstantin Barinov
INFO
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2008-02-01 08:56 +0100), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> And what's the point, anyway? As far as I know the 3550 *hardware*
>> can't do IPv6 routing. As long as you're talking about *software*
>> IPv6 routing, a suitable 2800 router would probably give y
On (2008-02-01 08:56 +0100), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And what's the point, anyway? As far as I know the 3550 *hardware*
> can't do IPv6 routing. As long as you're talking about *software*
> IPv6 routing, a suitable 2800 router would probably give you better
> performance...
I'd never plan to
Separate VLANs (not overlapping) The four switches are connected for
redundancy purposes. Business unit A has resources upstream that business
unit B must be able to access (but still needs to remain separate
administratively)
As the shabby diagram depicts, each business unit switch is trunked tog
Ok, thanks all for feedback. It seems that the configurations are always
generic for the whole router. It is possible to add limiting only for a
specific interfaces?
cheers,
michel
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Rathlev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 1:05
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 11:37 +0100, Gabor Ivanszky wrote:
> Christopher E. Brown wrote:
> >
> >> the point is that even if all your devices speak OSPF, they will
> >> suffer from this issue as well.
> >> d4 speaking OSPF doesn't help Router A not to use it's connected
> >> interface to try to reac
Agreed, CoPP with a service-policy and maybe also using the "mls
rate-limit unicast cef glean " and so on.
Just remember that to limit these things is to limit the services that
the supervisor is meant to deliver. You can easily put yourself in a
situation where the DoS scenario becomes a problem
Hi team
does anyone run 3750MEs in combined L2/MPLS setup? We are considering
various designs for a customer at the moment, they are rebuilding their
MPLS network from scratch to support both L2 and L3 MPLS services.
Having 7600/ES20 as N-PE, and 3750ME based L2 access rings, L3 services
(IPv4, I
Higham, Josh wrote:
> I have a couple of internal groups that need some level of private
> connectivity within our network, and I'm looking at some high level
> input about the various options.
>
> We currently have an MPLS network between most sites, with IPSEC
> connectivity for a few minor site
On Feb 1, 2008 11:25 AM, Michel Renfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All!
>
> What is the best way to avoid SUP stress conditions due to
> ARP floods on 7600 plattform? (76xx facing to an IX as an
> example)?
Control Plane Policing (CoPP) and rate limit arp traffic.
David
>
> Any tips/ hints?
Christopher E. Brown wrote:
the point is that even if all your devices speak OSPF, they will
suffer from this issue as well.
d4 speaking OSPF doesn't help Router A not to use it's connected
interface to try to reach the network, and d4 also(and all the
possible networks behind d4), still crea
Hi All!
What is the best way to avoid SUP stress conditions due to
ARP floods on 7600 plattform? (76xx facing to an IX as an
example)?
Any tips/ hints?
cheers,
michel
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mail
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 08:00:41AM +, Simon Lockhart wrote:
> On Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 08:56:59AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > And what's the point, anyway? As far as I know the 3550 *hardware*
> > can't do IPv6 routing. As long as you're talking about *software*
> > IPv6 routing, a suita
Hello,
I have a Cisco 7600 RSP 720 with several VRFs defined (only local VRFs, no
MPLS).
The router has the following config:
ip flow-cache entries 1
ip flow-cache timeout active 1
mls ip multicast flow-stat-timer 9
mls flow ip interface-full
mls nde sender version 5
ip flow-export version
On Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 08:56:59AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And what's the point, anyway? As far as I know the 3550 *hardware*
> can't do IPv6 routing. As long as you're talking about *software*
> IPv6 routing, a suitable 2800 router would probably give you better
> performance...
The poi
> > Noticed that 12.2(44)SE was recently released for the Cat3550 switch, and
> > feature navigator lists a whole load of IPv6 support. Yay!
>
> It works unidirectionally, it can send IPv6 packets, but it can't
> receive them.
> I have no clue if the hardware is even capable of punting them
> to s
44 matches
Mail list logo
