Re: [c-nsp] command or third party software about switch port

kcc wrote: Hi all ls any software / command to find out the ip address of the computer which is connecting to switch portxx I want to check this ip of server when the switch portxx is using high bandwidth? I believe nedi (nedi.ch) will do this for you. Howie ___

[c-nsp] Cisco 877 DSL Sync issue

Anyone have any experience getting the Cisco 877 to (not) sync with a Covad DSL circuit? I've tried the built-in firmware in 12.4(15)Tx, along with several versions of the external firmware (3.0.10, 3.0.33, 2.6.4). I've tried hard setting the DSL mode, along with trying a different router and no

Re: [c-nsp] command or third party software about switch port

Cacti has a plugin called mactrack that will do this. On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 13:59:27 -0400 kcc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all > > ls any software / command to find out the ip address of the computer > which is connecting to switch portxx > > I want to check this ip of server when the switch po

Re: [c-nsp] command or third party software about switch port

One way is to connect to the device and type show mac address-table interface gigabitEthernet 1/12 This will give you all mac addresses associated to an interface, copy the mac address and connect to your core router and type show ip arp 000b.cd42.4a1c this will then give you the ip address that

Re: [c-nsp] command or third party software about switch port

Solarwinds packages this up, nice and pretty, with it's "Switch Port Mapper". You don't want to know how much that costs ... But if you already own the Engineer's toolset, go for it. >>> "Arie Vayner (avayner)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/09/08 01:34PM >>> The way to do it is to check the MAC address l

Re: [c-nsp] command or third party software about switch port

The way to do it is to check the MAC address learned on that port (show mac-address), and then use the "show ip arp" command using that MAC address on the 1st layer 3 hop (the router which used as L3 default gateway for that VLAN. Arie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[

[c-nsp] command or third party software about switch port

Hi all ls any software / command to find out the ip address of the computer which is connecting to switch portxx I want to check this ip of server when the switch portxx is using high bandwidth? thanks ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.

Re: [c-nsp] Maximum number of OSPF instances in aVRF-liteenvironment

Timothy Arnold wrote on Thursday, October 09, 2008 3:54 PM: > Slightly off the topic. > > Is there any advantages for using OSPF for PE-CE routing? Or is it > down to what the customer wants? I assume that most operators will > use BGP (or maybe EIGRP?) I guess most

Re: [c-nsp] Maximum number of OSPF instances in aVRF-liteenvironment

Slightly off the topic. Is there any advantages for using OSPF for PE-CE routing? Or is it down to what the customer wants? I assume that most operators will use BGP (or maybe EIGRP?) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: 09

Re: [c-nsp] Fwd: NAT in VRF

Yes you can. I used to do that with 2 VRF-Lites on 2 DMVPN tunnels. Platform doesn't make any different. Luan Nguyen Chesapeake NetCraftsmen, LLC. www.NetCraftsmen.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Roberton Sent: Thursday, Octobe

Re: [c-nsp] [j-nsp] BGP route flap damping

Hi all on list, Thanks to all who have replied. I have taken a look at the RIPE documents and some of the presentations from the NANOG archive. Admittedly, I'm not well acquainted with the discrete mathematics used in some of the recommend reading materials. However, considering the inputs from

[c-nsp] Fwd: NAT in VRF

-- Forwarded message -- From: Gary Roberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:13 AM Subject: NAT in VRF To: "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net" Can someone please confirm for me that you can have the same IP address in different VRFs natted to different destinations. In o

[c-nsp] NAT in VRF

Can someone please confirm for me that you can have the same IP address in different VRFs natted to different destinations. In other words; 217.1.1.1 nat to 10.1.1.1 in VRF A 217.1.1.1 nat to 192.168.1.1 in VRF B I can't see any reason why not. What about if using VRF-Lite on a 3845, does that

Re: [c-nsp] Maximum number of OSPF instances in a VRF-liteenvironment

Mark Tinka wrote on Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:19 AM: > On Wednesday 08 October 2008 17:12:07 Oliver Boehmer > (oboehmer) wrote: > >> right, this got changed in 12.3(4)T, 12.0(27)S, >> 12.2(25)S, 12.2(18)SXE and others where IOS no longer >> allocates a PDB per OSPF v

Re: [c-nsp] Maximum number of OSPF instances in a VRF-liteenvironment

On Wednesday 08 October 2008 17:12:07 Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote: > right, this got changed in 12.3(4)T, 12.0(27)S, > 12.2(25)S, 12.2(18)SXE and others where IOS no longer > allocates a PDB per OSPF vrf instance, so you are not > limited by the 32 PDB instances any longer.. Great news! We

Re: [c-nsp] BGP route flap damping

On Thursday 09 October 2008 15:23:12 xdsgrrr wrote: > No we can't say this is a legacy feature because ISPs > still use this feature and only a few small ISP is > disabled this because they dont't have a time to read RFC > and RIPE documents or for other reasons ;)) . br, > Atanas Yankov I thin

Re: [c-nsp] BGP route flap damping

There is no over-generalizations in this dude statments its true only a little ISP don't use this route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bgp fl reg _17992_ BGP table version is 7792882, local router ID is 198.32.162.100 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,

Re: [c-nsp] BGP route flap damping

On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 10:32 +0800, Ang Kah Yik wrote: > > Meanwhile, can we assume (in general) that the conclusion to my > > original post is that route flap damping is more of a "legacy > > feature" these days and we can, to a larger extent, disregard it? On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 10:23 +0300, xdsgr

Re: [c-nsp] BGP route flap damping

No we can't say this is a legacy feature because ISPs still use this feature and only a few small ISP is disabled this because they dont't have a time to read RFC and RIPE documents or for other reasons ;)) . br, Atanas Yankov On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 10:32 +0800, Ang Kah Yik wrote: > Hi Ajeet, > T