[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -
>
>yeah i like it too. i swore off putty because i had to click so many
>d!mn times to open new connections. i love being able to just double
>click and use tabs when i'm in a windows environment. for all my
>whining i don't mind the terminal program and expect script
Alex Howells wrote:
>>> Thanks guys :) Was just pondering whether a Catalyst 4948 would be good
>>> enough for deployment with two partial feeds, as 76xx series is somewhat
>>> expensive for that particular project!
>>>
>>> Guessing the FIB on it will be the limiting factor.
>> Very very partial f
I would break it into securing the "corporate" network and then securing
the voice stream. You might want to check out this doc for securing
signaling and transport -
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/security/4_0_1/secuview.html
--
Colin McNamara
(858)208-8105
CCIE #18233,RHCE
> Yeah that doesn't ring a bell either. It's a very simple config:
>
> 10 VLANs,
> 2 SVIs
> 1 default-gateway
> 1 TAC+ server
> 1 TAC+ source-interface
> vlan dot1q tag native
> 1 dot1q trunk port (uplink)
> 8 access ports in each their VLANs
>
"sh run int vlan15". Are you sure you don't
>>
>> Thanks guys :) Was just pondering whether a Catalyst 4948 would be good
>> enough for deployment with two partial feeds, as 76xx series is somewhat
>> expensive for that particular project!
>>
>> Guessing the FIB on it will be the limiting factor.
>
> Very very partial feeds. The 4948 is l
Alex Howells wrote:
> Deepak Jain wrote:
>>> For lower-end platforms like ISRs, You could go with 384MB. However
>>> 512MB is really recommended for things like soft-reconfig/etc.
>>>
>>> For higher-end platforms, the platform itself won't propably just
>>> "do full BGP" so Your mileage may vary wi
Deepak Jain wrote:
>> For lower-end platforms like ISRs, You could go with 384MB. However
>> 512MB is really recommended for things like soft-reconfig/etc.
>>
>> For higher-end platforms, the platform itself won't propably just
>> "do full BGP" so Your mileage may vary wildly.
>>
>> Think "512MB or
>
> For lower-end platforms like ISRs, You could go with 384MB. However
> 512MB is really recommended for things like soft-reconfig/etc.
>
> For higher-end platforms, the platform itself won't propably just
> "do full BGP" so Your mileage may vary wildly.
>
> Think "512MB or more" for safe sleep
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Howells) wrote:
> Quick question since my Google-fu is failing me: what's the DRAM
> requirement to take a full routing table from a provider these days?
That would depend on your architecture.
My SUP720-3B has it this way:
rt#sh ip bgp summary
BGP router identifier xx.xx
Alex Howells wrote:
> Quick question since my Google-fu is failing me: what's the DRAM
> requirement to take a full routing table from a provider these days?
For lower-end platforms like ISRs, You could go with 384MB. However
512MB is really recommended for things like soft-reconfig/etc.
For high
Quick question since my Google-fu is failing me: what's the DRAM
requirement to take a full routing table from a provider these days?
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Murphy, William
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our Cisco SE is saying that it is supported... The product data sheet says
> the following... In what context are you saying it's not supported?
http://tinyurl.com/2j4mg8
• Software requirements: VSS is supported in
Our Cisco SE is saying that it is supported... The product data sheet says the
following... In what context are you saying it's not supported?
MPLS ● MPLS in hardware to enable use of
Layer 3 VPNs and EoMPLS
tunneling.
● Up to 1024 virtual routing and
forwarding instances (VRFs) with a
total of
I have done this (though without encryption) with 1801W units in both ends.
Required some creative routing but works well when all is done.
You will offcourse get a lower MTU then before.
Best regards
Mattias Gyllenvarg
Skycom AB
> A customer of ours has two sites, one with an 1800 the other wit
If the price is the same, I don't see the cause for further debate. Why would
you not purchase the newer, yet still compatible gear, for future better
performance and longer support life?
>>> Mark Tinka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/22/08 08:33 AM >>>
On Thursday 21 February 2008, Dirk-Jan van Helmond
On Thursday 21 February 2008, Dirk-Jan van Helmond wrote:
> The 3CXL will work with a Sup720/3BXL, but will
> (ofcourse) operate in 3BXL mode. no disadvantage (except
> financially).
Actually, the price of a DFC-3BXL and DFC-3CXL is exactly
the same. We bought a couple for our 6500/SUP720-3BXL's
Hi,
I've just upgraded a 2960 to 12.2.44(SE) LAN BASE and I'm now getting
a syslog message with the title ILET-1-AUTHENTICATION, then a long
message saying "This switch may not have been manufactured by Cisco or
with Cisco's authorization blah blah something about software".
What exactly has
yeah i like it too. i swore off putty because i had to click so many d!mn times
to open new connections. i love being able to just double click and use tabs
when i'm in a windows environment. for all my whining i don't mind the terminal
program and expect scripts from my mac ;-)
--
Regards,
Ja
Really Nice tool.
Juliano Luz
Analista de Redes e Telecomunicações
Infra-Estrutura de Redes e Telecomunicações
Telemática - Confederação SICREDI - Porto Alegre
+55 (51) 3358-7113
http://www.sicredi.com.br
-Mensagem original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Em nome de Mar
Hi Paul,
i've been running into a very similar experience recently. "Out of the blue"
a 7300 P router (ie. it only swaps MPLS labels and that's it) after slightly
more than two years uptime started logging messages similar to yours:
Feb 13 19:53:34.792: %IDMGR-3-INVALID_ID: bad id in id_delete (b
20 matches
Mail list logo
