In a stp troubleshooting paper on cco, I saw a recommendation to run
pagp (non-silent) due to it's ability to select/negiotiate which port
in the bundle to run stp on. Also to prevent that the configs differ
and shut down inconsistant ports.
(was a while and I dont have a photographic memory so pl
Oli
*autoroute announce* will send all the traffic (IGP + VPN) towards tunnel,
where as i dont want to send IGP traffic but only VPN traffic.
Is there any way.well u say static...managment of static will b a great
hurdle in routing of 1000s of VPNs routes...
Is there any solution, to this is
Frank,
CEF isn't architected to handle overlapping directly connected
subnets. We block most of those configurations from even being allowed.
I know we've missed some permutations before.
It has to do with how the /32 adjfib entries are programmed for the
/32 that maps from the FIB to the arp ent
I don't have one handy to test.
I'd have to set it up in the lab.
What's the full config on the interface and what does 'sh cef int' say?
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:26:38AM -, David Freedman wrote:
> Assuming this is a bug but can't find it documented anywhere , either in
> release notes or
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:08:44PM -0400, David Coulson wrote:
> Hi-
>
> I am looking at a deployment with a pair of 7301s with two DS-3s
> connecting them. The intention is to extend an Ethernet segment from one
> port across the two DS-3s to a port on the second 7301. Having used
> bridge-gro
Why not use something like RAD's RICi-T3. I'm sure it would be a whole lot
less money, and much more straight-forward.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Coulson
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:09 PM
To: Cisco
Subject: [c-nsp
On Mar 19, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Lincoln Dale wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> not a specific diagnosis to your problem, but i think this is a bit
> of a warning here:
>
> matthew zeier wrote:
>> Felt like a broadcast storm or even a spanning-tree loop but I'd be
>> surprised if it was the latter and the
Hi-
I am looking at a deployment with a pair of 7301s with two DS-3s
connecting them. The intention is to extend an Ethernet segment from one
port across the two DS-3s to a port on the second 7301. Having used
bridge-groups in the past for high bandwidth applications, I realize
that they perfo
Ah yes, I love those guys..
I got sick of trying to be polite and just said 'Sorry, my routers
have more important things to do, than respond to your ICMP packets.'
-Shane
On 20/03/2008, at 11:00 AM, Tom Storey wrote:
>> It's only bad if the process using it is starving other processes
>> fr
> It's only bad if the process using it is starving other processes from
> doing their job correctly (icmp echo is not an important job).
Try telling that to customers.
Get a router that is reasonably busy during peak times, and you'll get
your occasional "know it all wannabe network engineer" wh
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
> Couldn't you do it with some kind of T3 "channel bank"?
Nope.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
David Coulson wrote:
> Short of using the PA-MC-T3 to finance the purchase of a PA-T3+, nope.
Couldn't you do it with some kind of T3 "channel bank"?
Peace... Sridhar
> Brandon Price wrote:
>> Is there any way to have a PA-MC-T3 in a 7206 use the full DS3 (non
>> channelized) for an HDLC connec
Hi Matthew,
not a specific diagnosis to your problem, but i think this is a bit of a
warning here:
matthew zeier wrote:
> Felt like a broadcast storm or even a spanning-tree loop but I'd be
> surprised if it was the latter and the upstream switches, two 6500s,
> didn't know how to do deal with
A PA-MC-T3+ but not the regular model, it only supports channelized.
Phil
On Mar 19, 2008, at 7:57 PM, Brandon Price wrote:
> Is there any way to have a PA-MC-T3 in a 7206 use the full DS3 (non
> channelized) for an HDLC connection to
> Another 7206 with a PA-T3+ in a lab environment?
>
>
>
> T
Short of using the PA-MC-T3 to finance the purchase of a PA-T3+, nope.
Brandon Price wrote:
> Is there any way to have a PA-MC-T3 in a 7206 use the full DS3 (non
> channelized) for an HDLC connection to
> Another 7206 with a PA-T3+ in a lab environment?
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Brandon Price
> Sterling Co
Is there any way to have a PA-MC-T3 in a 7206 use the full DS3 (non
channelized) for an HDLC connection to
Another 7206 with a PA-T3+ in a lab environment?
Thanks
Brandon Price
Sterling Communications Inc.
/31 <--- The Subnet Formally Known as "Unusable"
_
Matthew,
On 19/03/2008, matthew zeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[...]
> From some of the log entries I could gleam from the console buffer, it
> looks like the native vlan on one of the port channel members was
> inadvertently changed and was marked as incompatible with the other
> bundle
As far as the CPU jumping to a high amount, that's not necessarily a
bad thing. A lot of people think just because a CPU is 99% utilized
that's a bad thing, when it's not. It's only bad if the process using
it is starving other processes from doing their job correctly (icmp
echo is not an
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:27:05AM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> I would advice against getting 6500 and instead getting 7600 if purchased
> new from Cisco, due to the 7600 BU not allowing SR to be run on 6500
> chassis. With 7600 you have both options.
Be careful about -S chassis. SX
Chris,
Yes, a linecard slot without a blank compromises airflow. So it is best
practice to always cover unoccupied slots.
/eninja
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 5:41 AM, Chris Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> thanks for your response.
> Agreed, what changed?? A remote site, and tech claims nothing
Interesting...
I ran into a similar network meltdown issue last year during a 6509 to
6509-E migration effort. Fairly small switching (servers only, no
connected end users) network compounded by the use of blade server ESMs
and interim 4948 switches used during the migration.
Network ran fine fo
Support for 3rd-party SFPs.
Support for longer-ranged single-strand optics (10k doesn't come close
to cutting it.
Configuration comments.
Drew Weaver wrote:
> What are some persistent things about Cisco products that no
> matter how high into the product line you travel you ca
What are some persistent things about Cisco products that no
matter how high into the product line you travel you cannot get away from? I
was sitting around the other day thinking about how odd it is that in 2008 the
BGP scanner still causes the CPU utilization to jump ridiculous
I have an HP blade system with two WS-CBS3020-HPQ switches. Console
logged the following error during which the entire network was unreachable:
(6444)msecs, more than (2000)msecs (719/326),process = HLFM address
learning process.
-Traceback= 4794B0 479A4C 4799B0 2E9E64 4F788C 32D6C4 11B980 11BE
Well, you are not telling the headend (10K or 7200) what to forward down
the tunnel. Without any "tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce" or
static routes or forwarding-adjacency, no traffic will be sent over the
tunnel, so the IGP path towards the BGP next-hop will still point to
your outgoing
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 07:50:11AM -0800, Brandon Price wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
>
> >I would advice against getting 6500 and instead getting 7600 if
> purchased new
> >from Cisco, due to the 7600 BU not allowing SR to be run on 6500
> chassis.
> >With 7600 you have both options.
-Original Message-
>I would advice against getting 6500 and instead getting 7600 if
purchased new
>from Cisco, due to the 7600 BU not allowing SR to be run on 6500
chassis.
>With 7600 you have both options.
>Yes, SXF is very mature, but if he's looking to go brand new
>I think it woul
IPv6 headers are 40 bytes, twice that of IPv4.
Add 20 bytes for TCP headers, just as you would with IPv4, which gives
you 60 bytes total for TCP/IPv6.
If using PPPoE you'd probably want an MSS of 1432 for IPv6.
However, IPv4 headers can vary in length to greater than 20 bytes,
but, IPv6 has
thanks for your response.
Agreed, what changed?? A remote site, and tech claims nothing at all
changed. Changed filters, room temps are controlled and same as always,
airflow is questionable, Inlet sensors are good but HOT sensors are higher
than normal.
if there is a Line card slot open without a
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 08:36:40AM +, Howard Jones wrote:
> We have an existing network of (mostly) 7206VXRs which I'd like to run
> MPLS over if I can. Thing is, for historical reasons, there's isn't
> really a core as such - each router is an edge to something. From my
> reading, almo
Hi
I'm playing with a IPv6 tunnel broker on my home ADSL/Cisco 1701 for
testing as we are deploying IPv6 at work over a long period.
On my ADSL router I have ip tcp adjust-mss 1452 to account for the ppp
over atm encapsulation overhead im assuming 1452 is correct as ive had
varying recommendatio
Justin,
As you've rightly observed, an RP crash will impact the SP and vice-versa.
This platform does not support HA features like NSF, SSO et al because it
has a fixed-hw-config with no processor redundancy.
Any form of software crash is a bug. You don't need a maintenance contract
to be able to
Hi Dale,
The output for Flexible NetFlow has the L4 ports in decimal format, eg:
LX-7301-10#show flow monitor nf-original-with-dstIntKey cac format table | in
102.2|TOS
INTF OUTPUT IP TOS IP PROT IPV4 SRC ADDR IPV4 DST ADDR TRNS SRC PORT TRNS
DST PORT INTF INPUT
Fa1/10x00
(Troy Beisigl question prompted me to ask mine about smaller MPLS)
We have an existing network of (mostly) 7206VXRs which I'd like to run
MPLS over if I can. Thing is, for historical reasons, there's isn't
really a core as such - each router is an edge to something. From my
reading, almost ever
Chris,
What changed?
The CSC usually bumps up power to other fans when a fan has failed or the
cooling system has been compromised or the room gets too hot etc. So, check
the fans, the filters, ensure room temp and cooling is in order, ensure
airflow through the chasis hasn't been compromised by
On 19 Mar 2008, at 00:05 , Scott Granados wrote:
> I'm starting to experiment with implimenting QOS on a network. I'm
> mainly
> experimenting in my home lab which consists of 2 7206's (400's) with
> a few
> 35xx's and a 2610. Can anyone suggest good starting pointers and
> possibly
> con
Here is the working configuration & when i disable LDP from Juniper core
interfaces (fe-0/0/0 & fe-0/0/1)...MPLS VPNs sites get disconnected
C10K#sh run
ip vrf vpn1
description Test VPN 1
rd 1241:100
route-target export 1241:100
route-target import 1241:100
!
mpls traffic-eng tunnels
mpls
If you are only using one router to terminate all circuits, and there
are no other routers involved, MPLS doesnt come into the picture.
All you need to do is define two VRFs on your router, place the
respective circuits into each of those VRFs, add some static routes as
required, and youre d
38 matches
Mail list logo
