Re: [c-nsp] Bit, byte huh?

:-> "John" == John T Yocum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bandwidth providers use megabits for measurement. > As well, 1 byte = 8 bits. and it's metric multipliers also, k=1000, M=100 etc. -- --- Pierf

[c-nsp] ARP-cache Timeouts for ASA5520

We are looking at the possibility of purchasing load-balancers for our web servers(2) and mail gateways(2). Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of money to throw at this solution and are therefore looking at the most economic solutions available. As a result, one of our options is what I consider

Re: [c-nsp] Best way to filter local traffic from Internet traffic

Is there any way to re-write the TTL on incoming packets so that they don't traverse too far upstream, therefore essentially limiting this customer's traffic to just the local LAN? Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of root net Sent: Tuesd

Re: [c-nsp] ATM to Frame internetworking

This doesn't look right LMI enq sent 355, LMI stat recvd 0, LMI upd recvd 0, DTE LMI down I would think your router would be receiving LMI from the switch. If the switch is sending LMI, I would check to make sure the LMI protocol is the same on both ends frame-relay lmi-type ansi "Three L

Re: [c-nsp] WAN Simulator

did you google for: wan emulation site:cisco.com ? Stefan On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:14 PM, aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey Guys, > > > > Can anyone recommend a decent free WAN simulator application? I would like > to simulate our WAN so that I can test some WAN acceleration hardware > app

Re: [c-nsp] Short pipe with Inter-as option 10b

Hi oli, I understood - if CPE is managed one, it's good to use uniform mode and if CPE is unmanagaed, use pipe/short pipe mode. What is the best strategy for transit traffic?? Regards, Vikas Sharma On 6/9/08, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Vikas Sharma

Re: [c-nsp] Bit, byte huh?

Thanks guys! On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Tom Storey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, I was wondering what unit of bandwidth measurement does Internet > > Bandwidth Providers usually use? Megabits or Megabytes? > > in the usual, cisco router and switches, how do we measure bandwidth? by >

Re: [c-nsp] Bit, byte huh?

> Hi, I was wondering what unit of bandwidth measurement does Internet > Bandwidth Providers usually use? Megabits or Megabytes? > in the usual, cisco router and switches, how do we measure bandwidth? by > bit > or by byte? It is a bit confusing as 1 byte = 8bits right? > I'm afraid some of my cal

Re: [c-nsp] Bit, byte huh?

Bandwidth providers use megabits for measurement. As well, 1 byte = 8 bits. --John Dracul wrote: Hi, I was wondering what unit of bandwidth measurement does Internet Bandwidth Providers usually use? Megabits or Megabytes? in the usual, cisco router and switches, how do we measure bandwidth? b

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 877 config for Telefonica

> The 877-K9's I've been ordering for the last year have supported ADSL2 > without an issue IIRC. > > Cheers, > > Will > Any recent IOS image will support ADSL2/2+. There was a certain IOS version (mid 2006ish?) where the 877's moved from ADSL1 only to ADSL1/2/2+ but I cant recall off the top of m

[c-nsp] Bit, byte huh?

Hi, I was wondering what unit of bandwidth measurement does Internet Bandwidth Providers usually use? Megabits or Megabytes? in the usual, cisco router and switches, how do we measure bandwidth? by bit or by byte? It is a bit confusing as 1 byte = 8bits right? I'm afraid some of my calculations mi

[c-nsp] WAN Simulator

Hey Guys, Can anyone recommend a decent free WAN simulator application? I would like to simulate our WAN so that I can test some WAN acceleration hardware appliances in a lab environment. Cheers! Aaron. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@

Re: [c-nsp] Best way to filter local traffic from Internet traffic

On Tuesday 10 June 2008, root net wrote: > I do not think shaping traffic would work as I am not > trying to throttle his traffic to everyone else but our > local LAN I want to provide a circuit that only allows > local LAN traffic meaning our directly connected > customers routes only not any oth

[c-nsp] ATM to Frame internetworking

Hi all, I'm having a few problems with ATM to Frame and I'm hoping someone here can help. I have a customer DSL line that terminates on a cisco 7200, the 7200 is doing Frame Relay-to-ATM Service Interworking (FRF.8). On the 7200 I'm using a Multi-Channel T1/Pri card that connects to my frame swi

[c-nsp] Software forced crash, PC 0x605D05A8

Hi, I'm hoping someone might be able to atleast lead me in the right direction about this. Its an old unit, we don't have support on it due to how expensive it is (I could buy a few units for the software price alone). If there are any hints about what might be causing it, atleast it'll b

[c-nsp] CBWFQ/PQ Support on 6500/SUP720-3BXL

Dear All, I have a requirement to implement CBWFQ/LLQ matching on EXP bits on a 6500 with SUP720-3BXL. Since the "priority" command is not supported within a policy-map, I am wondering if this can be achieved using "wrr-queues". This is the failure message when I apply the service-policy: 65

Re: [c-nsp] Large GLBP installations

> Am I crazy for thinking GLBP is the problem here? Has anyone > else had experience with around 1000 GLBP groups on a 6500? The highest I've done was a couple of hundred groups, but that was with sub-second hellos (200 ms AFAIR). It worked fine. -A _

Re: [c-nsp] Best way to filter local traffic from Internet traffic

If (a) both their 10mbps and 100/1000mbps link are terminating on the same router and (b) "Local customers" means your directly attached customers then (1) you can you can influence traffic inbound to you (from the customer) with AS-path manipulation. Pretty standard, does not require cus

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 877 config for Telefonica

The 877-K9's I've been ordering for the last year have supported ADSL2 without an issue IIRC. Cheers, Will 2008/6/10 Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Kameron Gasso wrote: >> If I remember correctly, the ADSL port on the 877 won't support ADSL2/ADSL2+ >> (someone fee

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 877 config for Telefonica

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Kameron Gasso wrote: > If I remember correctly, the ADSL port on the 877 won't support ADSL2/ADSL2+ > (someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though). I think adsl_alc_20190.bin patch helps with this. Not quite as well as a hardware option (there's an 877 "M

Re: [c-nsp] Suppoted VRF's on NPE-G2's

On (2008-06-10 16:59 +0200), Mauritz lewies wrote: > Does any one have clear information on the maximum number of supported > VRF instances on Cisco 7200 NPE-G2's. We have +530 on box with five min average cpu of <30%. (+75% of that is I/O). Mostly static routes, few BGP couple handful of RIP. A

Re: [c-nsp] Best way to filter local traffic from Internet traffic

Perhaps you could provide layer2 access only via that connection. If you are entirely ethernet based, you could provide VLANs between customers for this private network. A layer3 filtering option would be to only allow access to certain netblocks from this second pipe. If it were done with BGP

Re: [c-nsp] Large GLBP installations

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 06:27:03PM +0200, Jerome Covini wrote: > One of my customers has been running into a very similar problem after > 1.5 year of GLBP stability. > Running Quad SUP720-3B's + PFC 3B's onto 12.2.18SXD=>8 IIRC, GLBP > running in round-robin mode for server LB'ing. This sounds e

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 877 config for Telefonica

William wrote: Hi, Can anyone provide me a working configuration for a Cisco 877 using Telefonica's 10Mb ADSL service? I've deployed these routers in the UK Are you sure this is regular ADSL, not an ADSL2 or ADSL2+ package? If I remember correctly, the ADSL port on the 877 won't support ADSL

Re: [c-nsp] Aggregation for multiple ISDN customers

Cant you just buy an ISDN PRI circuit? That should allow 23 inbound BRI calls? Brandon > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of root net > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 1:05 PM > To: Jay Hennigan > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re:

Re: [c-nsp] Aggregation for multiple ISDN customers

Yes you are correct. Solved. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Brandon Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cant you just buy an ISDN PRI circuit? That should allow 23 inbound BRI > calls? > > Brandon > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Beha

Re: [c-nsp] Best way to filter local traffic from Internet traffic

Yes this is right, we control the routing... On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Wink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You control the routing on your side, the customer doesn't necessarily have > to do anything... right? > > > root net wrote: > >> I do not think shaping traffic would work as I am not t

Re: [c-nsp] Large GLBP installations

I have used it quite a bit, however not in that many groups. I have done this at at least 4 deployments, with somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 groups. Usually 12.2(18) and a couple with 12.2(33)SXH1. Nick Griffin On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Jerome Covini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One

Re: [c-nsp] Large GLBP installations

One of my customers has been running into a very similar problem after 1.5 year of GLBP stability. Running Quad SUP720-3B's + PFC 3B's onto 12.2.18SXD=>8 IIRC, GLBP running in round-robin mode for server LB'ing. Can you let me know if a Cisco bugid has been already created following your TAC req

Re: [c-nsp] Suppoted VRF's on NPE-G2's

Mauritz lewies <> wrote on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:00 PM: > Hi > > Does any one have clear information on the maximum number of supported > VRF instances on Cisco 7200 NPE-G2's. > > The way I understand it is that it is an algorithm that creates a > balance between the number of VRFs and the nu

Re: [c-nsp] Large GLBP installations

Would it be possible to increase the hello and dead timers you're using for the GLBP so that you're sending hellos 1/2 as often, and you declare a neighbor dead after 1 more missed hello than what you're currently using? Seems like processing half as many hellos would help the CPU, and waiting for

Re: [c-nsp] Gratuitous arp and Pix

On Sun, Jun 08, 2008 at 11:25:47PM -0400, David Coulson wrote: > I am looking at implementing some IP takeover services on a network > behind Pixs (I think it's a pair of 535s running 7.2 - I don't control > it, but I can request config changes). It would appear that Pix does not > handle gratui

[c-nsp] Large GLBP installations

Hello everyone, What is the general feeling on the list of GLBP as well as GLBP on the SUP720-3BXL? For the past few months(!) I've been working with TAC to troubleshoot a perplexing issue. We have a pair of 6500/SUP720-3BXLs that aggregate a few thousand customer VLANs and provide first-hop gat

[c-nsp] Suppoted VRF's on NPE-G2's

Hi Does any one have clear information on the maximum number of supported VRF instances on Cisco 7200 NPE-G2's. The way I understand it is that it is an algorithm that creates a balance between the number of VRFs and the number of routes per VRF. However I can't find much useful info on

Re: [c-nsp] SIBYTE-CFC3-3-CORRECTABLE_ECC_ERR

I would have guessed that this was a physical memory defect but a quick trip to the output interpreter lists the following heat-related explanation: ERROR MESSAGE NOTIFICATIONS (if any) %SIBYTE-DFC9-3-CORRECTABLE_ECC_ERR: correctable ECC error has occurred Explanation: This error message appear

[c-nsp] SIBYTE-CFC3-3-CORRECTABLE_ECC_ERR

Hello, I received this messages on my 6500: *May 26 12:44:26 MET-DST: %SIBYTE-CFC3-3-CORRECTABLE_ECC_ERR: A correctable ECC error has occurred, A_BUS_L2_ERRORS: 0x0, A_BUS_MEMIO_ERRORS: 0xFF, A_SCD_BUS_ERR_STATUS: 0xC0DC3000 *Jun 10 14:12:48 MET-DST: %SIBYTE-CFC3-3-CORRECTABLE_ECC_ERR: A co

Re: [c-nsp] interrupt cpu // processor routed packets

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 09:30:26AM -0700, bill fumerola wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:32:30AM -0400, Rodney Dunn wrote: > > #1 issue with tunnels is usuall a fragmentation reassembley problem. > > (damn, i'm usually smarter than this.. :->) > > > Watch 'sh ip traffic' outputs for large jump

Re: [c-nsp] Best way to filter local traffic from Internet traffic

You control the routing on your side, the customer doesn't necessarily have to do anything... right? root net wrote: I do not think shaping traffic would work as I am not trying to throttle his traffic to everyone else but our local LAN I want to provide a circuit that only allows local LAN tra

Re: [c-nsp] RANCID Spiking CPUs

found it: see http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/fundamentals/configuration/guide/config_cache.html On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Pavel Skovajsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, > The reason why show run consumes high cpu is that it polls all IOS > modules/componets to get their configs > I

Re: [c-nsp] RANCID Spiking CPUs

Hey, The reason why show run consumes high cpu is that it polls all IOS modules/componets to get their configs I remember there is a command on newest IOS that uses some ram to cache show run output and speed the show run output process, but I cannot remember the exact command. Pavel On Tue, Jun

Re: [c-nsp] Best way to filter local traffic from Internet traffic

I do not think shaping traffic would work as I am not trying to throttle his traffic to everyone else but our local LAN I want to provide a circuit that only allows local LAN traffic meaning our directly connected customers routes only not any other routes. BGP would definitely work but I am not s

[c-nsp] Cisco 877 config for Telefonica

Hi, Can anyone provide me a working configuration for a Cisco 877 using Telefonica's 10Mb ADSL service? I've deployed these routers in the UK but I believe a few key points will be different such as the use of PPPoE for authentication. My 877 setup is quite simple, the user's PC is on private add

Re: [c-nsp] Best way to filter local traffic from Internet traffic

Rate-Limit/Traffic Shape Group ? rgs a. rahman isnaini r.sutan root net wrote: This customer is pretty savvy so BGP may be possible. But if not then what? On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Justin M. Streiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, root net wrote: I have a customer

Re: [c-nsp] Maximum number of routes on Cisco 7301 NSE100

(Just forwarding this helpful answer back to the list so it hits the archives) Kevin Graham wrote: Does anyone know what the maximum number of (IPv4 unicast) routes these can take? They have 512MB of RAM, which I believe is the maximum for this model. Presumably you mean 7304? nse100#s

Re: [c-nsp] Best way to filter local traffic from Internet traffic

This customer is pretty savvy so BGP may be possible. But if not then what? On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Justin M. Streiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, root net wrote: > > I have a customer that wants a 100/1000 Mb/s pipe into our network for our >> local customers. Thi

Re: [c-nsp] QOS Problem - 6500 SVI Interface

6500 is very (very) different. SearchCCO for 6500 QoS and then spend a couple of days reading and re-reading. Lots of limitations as its done in switch hardware so your line cards will determine whats possible and where. - Original Message - From: "Paul Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[c-nsp] QOS Problem - 6500 SVI Interface

I've ran across this before and can't remember..;) 6500 running native IOS and trying to apply QOS outbound on a VLAN SVI interface: dis1-rtr-pt(config-if)#service-policy output VOIP MQC features are not supported in output direction for this interface class-map match-any VOIP descr

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco Security Advisory: Multiple Vulner abilities in Cisco PIX and Cisco ASA

On Monday 09 June 2008 23:39, Frank Bulk wrote: > The advisory specifically says, "Cisco PIX security appliances running > versions 6.x are not vulnerable." I must have missed it then, sorry for my oversight, and for wasting your time. --Ariel -- Ariel Biener e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: ht

Re: [c-nsp] RANCID Spiking CPUs

On (2008-06-09 15:56 -0400), Nick Davey wrote: Hey Nick, > I've deployed rancid on a fairly large metro network, and am seeing some > pretty high CPU averages. When RANCID runs the CPU's on a large number of > our boxes spike to about 95% for several seconds. Although they have never > hit 100%,