Look at the global config option 'multilink bundle-name authenticated'
to avoid using the endpoint names.
Some more details are here:
https://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk713/tk507/technologies_tech_note09186
a0080093c49.shtml#authen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
Hi guys,
Recently I am getting the following log messages every 2 mins on the 3750
switch.
Oct 16 06:45:50 UTC: %SW_MATM-4-MACFLAP_NOTIF: Host 0017.cbb3.08fc in vlan
403 is flapping between port Fa1/0/3 and port Gi1/0/1
Oct 16 06:45:50 UTC: %SW_MATM-4-MACFLAP_NOTIF: Host 0017.cbb3.08fc in vlan
40
Hi,
We have 2 LNS that are part of a SGBP group. Users can connect with
multiple same type interfaces no problem. For example the customer may
have 2 ADSL wics in an 1841. So looks to be functioning correctly.
However we have another style of customer who has an ISDN bri and an
ADSL wic i
Hi ,
Im recently stuck in a configuration with a 2800s ISR with a HWIC-16a
plugged in .
An octal cable was plugged in, and afew ports were tested.
I mainly follow the guide at
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk801/tk36/technologies_configuration_example09186a008014f8e7.shtml
ip host box1 2002 17
Hi,
You could try using NBAR on your 2811, for example:
route-map inet permit 100
match protocol ftp
set ...
See http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/122t8/dtnbarad.htm
for more info :)
On Oct 15, 2008, at 02:53, Dan Letkeman wrote:
Hello,
Hi
I have a requirement to provide source redundancy for an SSM multicast
feed. In terms of routing, an anycast routing setup
seems to make sense, with two sources sending a stream with the same
source address and the routing table sorting
it out.
So what I'm thinking is that each of the di
Thank you, good to know!Oh actually there's a way to do with all in ingress,
so that's not a big concern.
Regards.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Dmitry Kiselev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 04:31:47PM +0200, Zorg 421 wrote:
>
> > Is anyone able to make "ip fl
On Oct 15, 2008, at 9:35 AM, Roy wrote:
Just because its a point to point circuit doesn't mean one side has to
have internal clocking. This is only true if the circuit is copper
all
the way. There are lots of reasons that the telco would have its own
equipment installed on the circuit and
-Original Message-
From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 12:01 PM
To: Luan Nguyen; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] OK, what is a cheap and dirty hack to test a port
> -Original Message-
> From: Luan Nguyen [mailto:[EMAI
Howard Jones wrote:
We're just looking at running QinQ over a network of 3750G switches, and
while I was investigating enabling jumbo frames, I came across this
document:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps700/products_configuration_example09186a008010edab.shtml#c3
which contai
Paul,
Thanks.
We do have one side set to internal and the other to line and did forget
about it for years.
I believe one side of our circuit is encapsulated in a DS3, since one tester
said they couldn't loop since they had to loop the whole DS3.
The other side must be just a regular T1 and they a
Gary Roberton wrote:
> Ian
>
> Am I right in that you said NAT is not supported in VRF-Lite on any
> platform?
>
I was only speaking or the Sup720 on the 6500 and 7600 platforms that
it is not supported.
Ian
> Regards
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Ian Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Howard Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "*Note: *If Gigabit Ethernet interfaces are configured to accept frames
> greater than the 10/100 interfaces, jumbo frames that ingress on a
> Gigabit Ethernet interface and egress on a 10/100 interface are dropped."
Well,
Most modern sonet gear does not provide clocking to individual DS1s
running it. The only reason clocking ever existed on point to point
circuits was that the older gear couldn't avoid being an active
participant in the circuit. It's possible the carrier you're using has
upgraded the equipment, and
> -Original Message-
> From: Luan Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 7:22 AM
> To: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] OK, what is a cheap and dirty hack to test a port
>
>
> Is it a Verizon circuit?
> We have a T1 circuit
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Turnbow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 6:50 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] OK, what is a cheap and dirty hack to test a port
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If I simply assign something li
Before everyone goes off, I've dealt with clocking issues before
and am well aware of these.
This particular circuit when it first started acting up, was pinned
one side internal, the other side recieve clock from the network.
After replacing the DSU card didn't help, I pinned both sides
to recie
Hi,
I'm re-designing a service provider MPLS network, and I'd
appreciate some macro-level input.
I have two major sites connected by two gigabit WAN lines. I
have or will have about a dozen Cisco switches (3508, 2960,
3548, 3550...), half a dozen C7206s for customer termination,
four J4350s for e
They claimed they don't provide clocking on point to point circuit...not
even for testing sake! We did played around with both side getting network
timing, with switching the side providing clocking, with both going
internal...etc, but nothing worked. It only works for some hours after they
break
It's on fiber. I asked if we could get network timing from them, but they
said no, not on this type of circuit.
Also, this circuit has been working for years with the same setting :)
Luan Nguyen
Chesapeake NetCraftsmen, LLC.
www.NetCraftsmen.net
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Wednesday 15 October 2008 10:22:17 Luan Nguyen wrote:
> Is it a Verizon circuit?
> We have a T1 circuit with Verizon and have the same problem. We have a
> point to point circuit, so one side has clocking set to internal to provide
> the clocking and the other side feeds from the line.
Have yo
Just because its a point to point circuit doesn't mean one side has to
have internal clocking. This is only true if the circuit is copper all
the way. There are lots of reasons that the telco would have its own
equipment installed on the circuit and you would need network timing.
Roy
Luan Nguy
Is it a Verizon circuit?
We have a T1 circuit with Verizon and have the same problem. We have a
point to point circuit, so one side has clocking set to internal to provide
the clocking and the other side feeds from the line.
I wrote the problem up at http://ccie-security.blogspot.com/
But basicall
Howard,
3750Gs usually do not have any 10/100BaseT ports. They have 10/100/1000BaseT
and SFP ones.
As long as the port is 10/100/1000, the actual speed that is running (10 or 100
or 1000) doesn't have any effect on the MTU.
So you can have it running in 10/100 and use the full mtu.
3750G>sh
If I simply assign something like IP 127.0.0.5/30 to the port and
throw a ton of traffic to 127.0.0.6, will the packets actually
go out the port? Or will the router see that the port is looped
and just discard the traffic?
>From the router running extended pings to the 127.0.0.5 address (t
Hi,
A client of mine (a gsm mobile carrier) with over 3 million subscribers is
looking for a solution that allows them to have an end-to-end visibility
into their network.
Portions of their requirements appear below:
Basically, we need a solution that is deployed in the NOC (Network
Operations Ce
We're just looking at running QinQ over a network of 3750G switches, and
while I was investigating enabling jumbo frames, I came across this
document:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps700/products_configuration_example09186a008010edab.shtml#c3
which contains:
"*Note: *If Gigabit
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
My question, is there a way I can configure the router port
so that I can throw a massive amount of (bogus, naturally)
traffic to it, and the traffic will go out the port, through the
DSU, loopback through the hard loopback plug, then come back
into the router and go int
I`m guessing this really shouldnt have found its way to ebay
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Prototype-Cisco-DS-3-Data-Center-3-Nexus-7000_W0QQitemZ220288308033QQihZ012QQcategoryZ11175QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262#ebayphotohosting
___
cisco-nsp mail
Hi All,
I have an 8 port PA-8T serial card in a router. The card has an
octopus cable that is plugged into a rack of card DSU's. Most
of the DSU's have T1's into them.
One T1 has developed a problem where it runs for a few hours
and then the router serial interface it is on goes down. When
Hi All,
On the Sup720-3BXL card has 2 gigabit uplink port. Does speed or any
limit on this ports?
I use 2 CPU card in my 6500 switch and 2+1 uplink ports in use.
Yesterday I reached the 950Mbit/sec on this ports (summarized data,
300Mbit, 300Mbit and 350Mbit was the traffic). But this 950Mbi
Ian
Am I right in that you said NAT is not supported in VRF-Lite on any
platform?
Regards
Gary
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Ian Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NAT is not supported in VRFs on Supervisor 720, VRF-Lite or PE. If you
> need NAT for VRFs then please use either a firewall modu
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 05:22:33PM +1100, Andy Saykao wrote:
> What I've found is that when I debug radius no Framed-Route and
> Framed-IP-Address are being sent in the start packet of the radius
> accounting packet. When I reload the 7301 with an IOS we use in
> production (12.3(14)T7) , the Fram
Sorted, seems there was a rogue rt that was not being imported. All fixed now
Thanks for all your help
- Original Message
From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Mark Tech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Luan Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; David
Freedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; cisco-n
Hi
I have a simple rate limit policy map that I would like to attach to a
sub-interface on a port channel however I get the following error:
VLAN loadsharing is not enabled, policymap cannot be attached
My policy map is as follows:
class-map match-any Default_rate_policing_class_map
match an
On Oct 15, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Reinhold Fischer wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:02:21PM +0200, Peter Rathlev wrote:
...
This would be SVI mode "EoMPLS", where one would expect local
switching.
Remember that "interface Vlan1005" isn't the same as "vlan 1005". It
would be VERY nice if the PF
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 09:59 +0200, Reinhold Fischer wrote:
> A dirty hack can be done to have VLAN-based EoMPLS without
> expensive cards. Just configure an additional VLAN on the box,
> assign a port to it and connect this single port in the new
> VLAN to a port the VLAN for which you want to hav
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:02:21PM +0200, Peter Rathlev wrote:
...
>
> This would be SVI mode "EoMPLS", where one would expect local switching.
> Remember that "interface Vlan1005" isn't the same as "vlan 1005". It
> would be VERY nice if the PFC3 could do this, but unfortunately it
> can't. You n
38 matches
Mail list logo
