Hi Seth,
Your route-map is ok (although the 3rd sequence - sequence 30 is
redundant and you can remove it completely).
Seems that Savvis don't send the communities to you.
Regards,
--
Ran.
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Seth Mattinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, September 6, 2008 00:52
The first time I went through the ASR materials I was left with the
impression that they were launching this product with the minimum software
features and hardware support. It's going to be some time before it's as
full-featured as it really needs to be.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [
This is exactly the thing that Verizon was called on the carpet for in NY
state.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:53 PM
To: jp; Brian Turnbow
Cc: Cisco Mailing list
Subject: Re: [c
Hi,
there seem to be two generations of ATM OC3 SPAs around:
SPA-2XOC3-ATM / SPA-4XOC3-ATM:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/modules/ps6267/product_data_sheet0900aecd8027cba7.html
and
SPA-1XOC3-ATM-V2 / SPA-3XOC3-ATM-V2:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/modules/ps6267/data_s
Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:
> Seth,
>
> You can use the "debug ip bgp updates" command (if you are getting a big
> table, you can use an ACL to filter it out...).
> If you get communities from your upstream, you would see it. If not,
> just send them the output, and let them worry about it.
>
Seth,
You can use the "debug ip bgp updates" command (if you are getting a big
table, you can use an ACL to filter it out...).
If you get communities from your upstream, you would see it. If not,
just send them the output, and let them worry about it.
Arie
-Original Message-
From: [EMAI
On Sat, September 6, 2008 00:52, Ran Liebermann wrote:
> Maybe you have an ingress route-map setting new communities without
> the "additive" suffix?
>
Here's what my ingress route-map looks like:
ip as-path access-list 2 permit ^3561$
route-map set-localpref permit 10
match as-path 2
set loca
Hey Seth:
On 9/5/08 4:07 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just went back and forth with TAC regarding IPv6 support on an 877W.
> Ultimately, the problem was that there isn't any support for IPv6 IRB, and
> IRB is the only way to put the wireless radio on the same segment as
Hi,
We do have a TAC case on this, I'm just wondering if anyone here has
seen something similar.
We upgraded from 3.1(1) to 3.1(9) on our context based L3, FWSMs. Now,
if an incoming SYN has timestamps there's a 50% chance that the FWSM
generates a bad checksum when it NAT translates the ret
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rondey, Nic,
>> >
>> >config t
>> >int null 0
>> >no ip unreachables
yes this is configured already.
>> >
>> >The ACL drops are, last I checked, rate limit punts.
>> this is interesting - there is a good article detailing cef and CPU
>> punting at :-
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 06:12:27PM -0400, Aaron wrote:
> for the 7200 with just bgp why not use 12.0S?
12.0S has no IPv6 support on the 7200 platform, so I consider this
release unsuitable for anything.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
Maybe you have an ingress route-map setting new communities without
the "additive" suffix?
--
Ran.
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Seth Mattinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a reason why I would not be receiving BGP communities? Upstream
> says they are sending, but I don't see anything
12 matches
Mail list logo
