Hi,
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 10:02:21PM +0100, Dean Smith wrote:
Our next load balancing requirement is now in design...and I spent today
with a Foundry SE.
You might want to check out the Citrix Netscaler series. We discovered
them about two years ago, and are happy users since then.
We do
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeremy McDermond
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 3:42 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS pirating requests
On Apr 8, 2008, at 4:58 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
You really
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tony Varriale
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 7:48 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS pirating requests
I would disagree with what's mostly here. But, I'm guessing both of us
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matthew Crocker
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 11:19 AM
To: Tony Varriale
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS pirating requests
SOP is buy the chassis and routing engine new
A sh run | in wccp gives me th following
Larkhall_Academy#sh run | in wccp
ip wccp 98
ip wccp 98 redirect in
The ip wccp98 redirect in is applied to FastEthernet0/1
Attempting to remove either line with it's no version gives the same
'The WCCP service specified does not exist.' Error.
Thanks
Dear All,
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 22:15 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
snip
PS: I'm sorry. This was my last 6500/7600 BU politics suck big time rant.
Aww... It was beginning to get under my skin. ;-D
While it won't change any time soon, this is just
On Wednesday 09 April 2008, Gert Doering wrote:
Indeed. Worse, they are now building increasingly
different chassis types with different capabilities -
6500-E with lots of power, and 7600-S with nice and
shiny high-availability EOBC (if I understand the
differences right).
What I would
Hi Tom
I've managed to get it working, tanks. The working config follow in attach.
Now I've a second issue. The outbound calls are supposed to come from a CT
Server (with a Dialogic D/240SC-T1 card) that connects to the router via a
T1.
During the test phase I'm also using an FXS.
From the
Mark Tinka wrote:
On Wednesday 09 April 2008, Gert Doering wrote:
Indeed. Worse, they are now building increasingly
different chassis types with different capabilities -
6500-E with lots of power, and 7600-S with nice and
shiny high-availability EOBC (if I understand the
differences
I note with concern that the Cisco product page lists the VSS as a
different product to the base 6500. Ordinarily such a minor thing
would not concern me, but as Gert has pointed out repeatedly, Cisco have
made people very nervous about the 6500/7600 roadmap...
I've been watching all
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 10:54:15AM +0100, Phil Mayers wrote:
Alternatively, if it's not at all too impossible, Cisco
could craft a daughter -3CXL card for the SUP720-3BXL so we
can get -3CXL functionality with a simple supervisor module
PFC upgrade.
I was under the impression the
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008, mack wrote:
Each one of these is catering to a smaller market segment.
Basic economic would indicate that the market for a general purpose device
is much larger than a more specialized device.
Its great for selling new products into existing markets.
Adrian
On Wed, April 9, 2008 12:27 pm, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Its great for selling new products into existing markets.
Or for losing existing markets to a vendor that isn't tearing itself apart
with 'internal competition'.
If I worked at Juniper, I'd be forwarding all the 'BU Wars' mails from
this list
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 05:29:55PM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
Alternatively, if it's not at all too impossible, Cisco
could craft a daughter -3CXL card for the SUP720-3BXL so we
can get -3CXL functionality with a simple supervisor module
PFC upgrade.
As in -3BXL upgrade for the Sup32?
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 10:37:10AM +0200, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
Probably we have to ask the 7600 BU to improve their software and take
decisions that make sense:
- They should improve quality of the IOS softwares!! - I have heard that
SRD will be tested more thoroughly... But currently
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008, Tim Franklin wrote:
On Wed, April 9, 2008 12:27 pm, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Its great for selling new products into existing markets.
Or for losing existing markets to a vendor that isn't tearing itself apart
with 'internal competition'.
If I worked at Juniper, I'd be
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 12:08:05PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
There is a 3B - 3BXL upgrade, which used to cost exactly the same as the
price difference between a Sup720/3B and a Sup720/3BXL (so it's not a
we'll send you a new Sup720).
So I'd assume that a - 3CXL upgrade should also
Has anyone considered that Cisco may be branching out to too many platforms?
The 6500 was a great success because it was all purpose.
It can switch and route.
It doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the 12000 series or the CRS-1 but
it performs well.
Cisco has split off the almost
On Wednesday 09 April 2008, Phil Mayers wrote:
I was under the impression the PFC is not an FRU.
Well, AFAIK, you can upgrade a SUP720 with a PFC-3A to one
with a PFC-3B or PFC-3BXL.
The upgrade kit also comes with a label to attach to front
of the supervisor module, identifying its PFC-type
Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
I note with concern that the Cisco product page lists the VSS as a
different product to the base 6500. Ordinarily such a minor thing
would not concern me, but as Gert has pointed out repeatedly, Cisco
have made people very nervous about the 6500/7600
Hi,
There is a 3B - 3BXL upgrade, which used to cost exactly the same as the
price difference between a Sup720/3B and a Sup720/3BXL (so it's not a
we'll send you a new Sup720).
Yup. The WS-F6K-PFC3BXL= is just that: a new -3BXL PFC and some memory to
upgrade the Sup itself to 1GB RAM.
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:37:01AM +0100, Phil Mayers wrote:
It was also implied (bearing in mind I was talking to a 6500 guy) that
the push came more from the 7600 side of the fence.
This was publicly confirmed also from the 7600 BU folks. In fact,
they explicitly asked for the split and
Hi there,
I'm having same problem as somebody described at
http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/2005-March/003376.html.
I have Cisco 5350XM and am trying to run TCL IVR v2.0 script
app_debitcard.tcl
Basically the error is:
Apr 9 07:50:43.987: //55274//MSM :/ms_asDone_buginf: Stream
Certainly Cisco must (should) have had numbers demonstrating the split
was reasonable, and it's possible the group of people on this list,
myself included, who dislike the split are a self-selecting minority.
It doesn't mean I have to like it though.
Time and customers will show if this
Hey Arie,
I actually asked this same question to Cisco. The official response I got
was this:
Extract:
This should work to some extent. However, for the large network I don't know
how reliable you can run this system for sure.
You are basically forcing static route in MSFC to forward traffic
Hello Experts!
Can the Cisco PIX v6 or v7 filter the SNMP request going through the firewall
for a specific OID only?
Thank you,
BR
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
I have several VIPs in different subnets than the reals, but he's right to
some extent, the static routing can be cumbersome. I inherited an
environment where IP space overlapped, and existed on both sides of the CSM,
and there were a bunch of more specific routes pointed toward the CSM client
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:02:06PM +1000, Brad Case wrote:
I actually asked this same question to Cisco. The official response I got
was this:
Extract:
This should work to some extent. However, for the large network I don't know
how reliable you can run this system for sure.
You are
We had an incident a little over a week ago where our upstream provider
(which managers our edge routers) told us that the BGP routes were flapping
between our two edge routers.
Is there a MIB that we can poll to monitor the number of changes in routing
tables, or BGP flaps?
Regards,
Frank
The 3550 can perform per-port/per-VLAN MQC. I can't speak for the VLAN ID
rewriting, though, and I don't believe this functionality exists in the
3560.
Jon Hartman
Network Engineering
Verizon Internet Operations
This is the same way I'm doing it; there is a bit of administrative overhead
though...
Chris
On 4/9/08, Ross Vandegrift [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:02:06PM +1000, Brad Case wrote:
I actually asked this same question to Cisco. The official response I
got
was this:
We've performed such an upgrade from 3A to 3BXL, to get around the 256k
FIB table limitation. The real bust comes when you have to upgrade all of
the DFC's with the PFC. If you don't, it'll run in the least common
denominator.
Jon Hartman
Network Engineering
'ello,
We just had a funny experience with a C6k/720 in our lab. We were
testing SXF13 AIS, and during a reload we saw the following:
00:01:36: %SCHED-SP-7-WATCH: Attempt to monitor uninitialized watched
bitfield (address 0).
-Process= Shutdown, ipl= 0, pid= 256
-Traceback= 402C3A18 404ED840
That will work for local BGP flaps, but if you are trying to monitor BGP
flaps on the net this will not work.
You could setup a router that has BGP dampening enabled, this will give you
a look into flaps
on the net.
harbor235 ;}
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Adam Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frank Bulk wrote:
We had an incident a little over a week ago where our upstream provider
(which managers our edge routers) told us that the BGP routes were flapping
between our two edge routers.
Is there a MIB that we can poll to monitor the number of changes in routing
tables, or BGP
Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
I've been watching all this conflict going on (and coming to the surface very
often on this list)
and i was wondering Based on what facts did cisco decide the seperation
of the 6500/7600 platforms?
I'm one of the few (would cisco do that if we were
Peter,
You can ignore this one, as it should not have any impact, after the
second reload.
We have seen this very rarely (once in 100+ reboots, on very few
systems), where an ASIC was not intialized properly,
and diagnostics was catching the condition, and resetting the
supervisor.
sukumar
Hi folks,
My employer is looking to send a few folks to CCNP bootcamp classroom
instruction. Anybody got an institution they really recommend or
dislike, and reasons thereto? It seems there are a whole pile of
technical learning places with very little distinction between them.
At $7-10k a
Adam Korab wrote:
Hi folks,
My employer is looking to send a few folks to CCNP bootcamp classroom
instruction. Anybody got an institution they really recommend or
dislike, and reasons thereto? It seems there are a whole pile of
technical learning places with very little distinction
Hi Sukumar,
Thanks for the information, which makes me more calm. :-)
Regards,
Peter
On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 10:16 -0700, Sukumar Subburayan (sukumars) wrote:
Peter,
You can ignore this one, as it should not have any impact, after the
second reload.
We have seen this very rarely (once in
Hello,
We have a 7206 running (C7200-IK9S-M), Version 12.3(20), RELEASE
SOFTWARE (fc2). We are trying to get LLQ implemented on Virtual Template
interfaces for our PPPoE DSL users:
vpdn-group akrnaa01rr
description SBC Akron VPDN Group
accept-dialin
protocol l2tp
virtual-template 1
We're not that desperate to monitor BGP flaps to install a router, and even,
that's not a counter, is it?
Sounds like there's no nice option to measure instability.
Frank
From: Mike Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:54 AM
To: Adam Armstrong
Cc:
You can do:
show run int virtual-access XXX
It probably won't list it in there though.
You can inject it into the interface via RADIUS using the Cisco-AVpair
attribute
Cisco-AVPair = lcp:interface-config#1=service-policy output llq-policy
FYI, those users are technically PPPoVPDN - PPPoE and
3750 Metro.
This switch can preform vlan 'remapping' (cisco term.) on the enhanced services
ports.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 4/9/2008 10:35 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Switch that can shape traffic per
I execute the follow a few times when I want to looking for flapping BGP
routes. CPU intensive on the router, but its simple to implement.
show ip route | inc 00:00
Mike Johnson wrote:
That will work for local BGP flaps, but if you are trying to monitor BGP
flaps on the net this will not
Maybe I missed something. Your upstream manages the routers, so can they
not explain the route flaps? I would think the burden would be on them
to demonstrate why your sessions reset?
Was there an event which caused the flaps?
Frank Bulk wrote:
We're not that desperate to monitor BGP flaps to
Hello,
I cant seem to get myself to understand spanning tree, SVIs and all the sort
by just reading, i dont have access to switches to get my hands to
configure, any suggestions?
Thanks,
Kim
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Start playing with IRB
--
http://dcp.dcptech.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kim Onnel
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:10 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Learning L2 switching and spanning tree by doing
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 08:36:57PM +0200, Andre Beck wrote:
Hi Jon,
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 10:35:36AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible that your interface is getting wedged?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/iad/ps397/products_tech_note09186a0
0800a7b85.shtml
On a PIX, no, version 7 snmp-map will let you filter with version
only, you may be able to do what you are after on an ASA with an SSM-
AIP module, but I haven't ever looked or tried.
Ben
On 09/04/2008, at 10:22 PM, Bagosi Rómeó wrote:
Hello Experts!
Can the Cisco PIX v6 or v7 filter
50 matches
Mail list logo
