Is this bug or just config under vty that disabled session timeout?
Do you have entry "exec timeout 0 0" at line vty?
On 2009/04/16, at 12:53, Yevgeniy Voloshin
wrote:
Hi,
I have the same problem on ME-C3750-24TE with Cisco IOS Software ->
C3750ME Software (C3750ME-I5-M), Version 12.2(44
g'day Dave,
i'll reply, because i can ,
David Hughes wrote:
Seeing as this is all bleeding edge, I'd be very interested in any
first hand experiences with breaking out FCoE to traditional FC via an
N5K. Is it working OK?
of course, i'll be biased here, but - yes - no issues with it working
j
If "legacy FC devices" means FC attached storage arrays, well that would be
just about everything out there today. Current and next generation C-N-A's
do not operate any differently in how FC attached storage is accessed (via a
Nexus 5K with FC uplinks). Even with FCoE attached storage the Nexus
If you are running a critical network without the convenience of rebooting,
Jim's Router# cle ip tcp tcb 58F2E668 worked for me
but take note some IOS use the Router#clear tcp tcb (without the 'ip')
regards,
chris
2009/4/16 Yevgeniy Voloshin
> Hi,
>
> I have the same problem on ME-C3750-24TE
Hi Rich ,
I am thinking on my international ISP community options. I have tired
before the as path prepending configuration with my international ISP. But
as a result , i was still getting some inbound traffic through international
ISP. If i use their community options , for example if i adve
Hi,
I have the same problem on ME-C3750-24TE with Cisco IOS Software ->
C3750ME Software (C3750ME-I5-M), Version 12.2(44)SE, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
In 'sh tcp brief | i \.2[23]' output nothing about telnet ports. But all
vty lines busy:
Line User Host(s) Idle
Dear Jason
I think ATM cell tax will be about 13% on average based on the following
ATM cell tax is composed of 2 parts
1- ATM over-header (5 bytes for each 53 byte cell and that is a fixed
percnt )
2- cell padding which depends packet distribution
so ATM overhead will be 5/53 = ~ 4%
and cell
Hello David,
This is entirely my personal opinion and I'm sure some folks in the Nexus
BU at Cisco would hit me for saying this given the chance.
Unless you are using legacy FC devices, hold off on the 5K for this. The
reason I say this is because a new class of storage devices and HBA's that
us
Hi
Seeing as this is all bleeding edge, I'd be very interested in any
first hand experiences with breaking out FCoE to traditional FC via an
N5K. Is it working OK? Are you running it as a switch or in NPV
mode? How's the interop with your FC fabric (and who's gear are you
using for FC
On 15-Apr-09, at 2:58 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Incidentally, the 'show fabric' undocumented command shows internal
latencies
across the fabric.
Highest latency on the fabric is 84ms, over two months ago.
The ATM SAR tax may be hitting you, too.
Not being an ATM guru, I hope someone will cl
On Wednesday 15 April 2009 13:42:08 Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> On 15-Apr-09, at 1:30 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote:
> > How much latency end-to-end in the setup with/without the 12008?
> 12ms (Toronto to New York and back) with the 12008. Haven't hair
> pinned a port on the New York Fore yet, so can't dete
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lamar Owen
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:35 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] GSR12008|GRP-B|4OC12/ATM-MM-SC|3GE-GBIC-SC
throughput?
>The GRP CPU is n
On 15-Apr-09, at 1:30 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote:
This may or may not be relevant, but depending on how much extra
latency
the 12008 introduces you might still have a client side limitation
doing
TCP. Reasonable TCP window sizes and effective sender side congestion
control are needed.
Good ad
On 15-Apr-09, at 1:11 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
But, back to the 12012, in full-bandwidth mode, the fabric is
theoretically
capable of giving 2.4Gb/s to each linecard. In quarter-bandwidth
mode, you
get 622Mb/s to each linecard. What does 'show controllers fia' tell
you? Only
engine 0 cards
On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 12:11 -0400, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> In this case, I can iperf 97Mbps between two machines connected
> together at 100Mb.
> Here's one of the tests we've done, and we were able to get ~97Mbps
> here:
>
> Macbook Pro -> Linksys 100Mb -> 1811 -> 7609 -> 10GE -> 7609 -> 355
Well, restarting the router will do it, when that is not as feasible you can
try:
Sh tcp br to get the TCB address, then clear that out with cle ip tcp tcb X
Router# sh tcp br
TCB Local Address Foreign Address(state)
5AEE7990 2.2.2.2.179 2.2.2.3.17492 E
On Wednesday 15 April 2009 12:11:10 Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> Again, the bandwidth going over the entire box is like 650Mbps spread
> more or less evenly across the two LCs.
Just a quick comment on this statement, and then in a few days I'll see if I
can't set up a back-to-back test with the 12012 h
Darin,
Sounds like the IOS zone based firewall might be applicable to what
you are after - there is support for NAT.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6441/products_feature_guide09186a008060f6dd.html
Note: I haven't configured this before so YMMV :-)
Steve
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 15:35, Je
On 15-Apr-09, at 11:34 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Tuesday 14 April 2009 18:22:03 Jason Lixfeld wrote:
For the life of us, we can't seem to get any more than 60Mbps
sustained across the ATM testing with iperf, so we're just trying to
figure out if the GSR just can't push any more than what it's d
Also watch out for CSCsy58115. BGP memory leak if you have any
idle/active peers. We are still going through the full scope of this
bug and how to get around it.
Thanks
Chris
Mark Tinka wrote:
On Tuesday 14 April 2009 11:48:36 pm MKS wrote:
What's your experience with SRC or SRC3 on 7200,
Basically you should look for reliable static routing using object tracking
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_3/12_3x/12_3xe/feature/guide/dbackupx
.html
An ICMP echo probe is created to monitor the GW of the primary interface.
The probe sends an ICMP echo every 5 seconds, and runs indefinite
On Tuesday 14 April 2009 11:48:36 pm MKS wrote:
> What's your experience with SRC or SRC3 on 7200, is it
> stable as a MPLS PE?
A number of bugs - the worst of which, for us, is a system
crash when running BFD on an NPE-G1. NPE-G2's and 7201's are
unaffected. Issue as yet unfixed (please look a
On Tuesday 14 April 2009 18:22:03 Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> For the life of us, we can't seem to get any more than 60Mbps
> sustained across the ATM testing with iperf, so we're just trying to
> figure out if the GSR just can't push any more than what it's doing or
> if there's something else afoot.
[
Hi all.
So we've been going back and forth on this issue with TAC,
and I recall posting a few comments about it online several
months back.
Here's an update for the archives and anyone that's
interested:
So TAC and I initially worked through bug ID CSCek75694
(Crash in Pseudo Preemption hand
On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 10:24 -0400, Luan Nguyen wrote:
> You could put Fa0 into a VLAN and use that for the cable modem
> connection.
Ok, that's what I figured would work.
Any suggestions for how to make the dual-wan work in a type of fail-over
setup? All of my searching turns up plenty of hits fo
On 15-Apr-09, at 10:52 AM, Aaron wrote:
whats the traffic flow? whats the input and the output?
bdr1.nyc-hudson-12008#show int a2/0 load
Interface bits/sec pack/sec
--
AT2/0 Tx 48464000
whats the traffic flow? whats the input and the output?
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:11, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
>
> On 15-Apr-09, at 10:04 AM, Pete Templin wrote:
>
> Jason Lixfeld wrote:
>>
>> CPU doesn't seem to be running too hot:
>>> CPU utilization for five seconds: 6%/0%; one minute: 20%; f
It doesn't.
I so wish it did, but no dice.
On 15-Apr-09, at 5:36 AM, Adrian Minta wrote:
According to "Cisco ME 3400 data sheet" http://tinyurl.com/yphgj5
the switch support uRPF with METROIPACCESS image, but I get the
following error:
switch(config)#interface GigabitEthernet0/2
switch(
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Darin Herteen wrote:
>
> I have a customer who's firewall recently bricked and is unusable. This
> device had previously served as a VPN to their LAN from the outside
> world, restricted access between internal VLAN's, and provided NAT for
> internal addresses to r
You could put Fa0 into a VLAN and use that for the cable modem connection.
There's no option for "no switchport" and turn it into a layer 3 interface.
Regards,
-
Luan Nguyen
Chesapeake NetCraftsmen, LLC.
[Web] ht
I have a customer who's firewall recently bricked and is unusable. This
device had previously served as a VPN to their LAN from the outside
world, restricted access between internal VLAN's, and provided NAT for
internal addresses to reach the internet. They happened to have a Cisco
3825 laying aro
did you tried to use vlans?
afaik those 870series router allows up to 5 vlans to be configured.
fa4 can be (ip-)addressed directly, afaik.
-steven
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of John Lange
Sent: Wedne
I'm looking for some configuration examples for a Cisco 871w in a
dual-wan environment. Physically the box only has one of the ports
labelled for a WAN port but is it possible to configure one of the other
ports as another external interface? Internally they all just show up as
FastEthernet ports 0
On 15-Apr-09, at 10:04 AM, Pete Templin wrote:
Jason Lixfeld wrote:
CPU doesn't seem to be running too hot:
CPU utilization for five seconds: 6%/0%; one minute: 20%; five
minutes: 19%
That's probably your xRP CPU. You should check the LC CPU too. I
wouldn't suspect they'll be the root
Jason Lixfeld wrote:
CPU doesn't seem to be running too hot:
CPU utilization for five seconds: 6%/0%; one minute: 20%; five minutes: 19%
That's probably your xRP CPU. You should check the LC CPU too. I
wouldn't suspect they'll be the root of the issue, but worth checking
early in your tro
it's rapid pvst, should not take time.
Regards,
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:47:02AM +0530, Swati Sharma wrote:
> > I am testing rpr-plus and could see links up in less then 1 sec but ping
> > resume only after 47 sec I und
Hi Stanly,
You have to use 'disconnect x' to clear a vty terminal, 'clear x' is for
async lines.
2009/4/15 Stanly Johns
> Hi there,
>
> even after clearing the vty lines they were still there. I was unable to
> telnet to the router.
>
> I had to restart the router to clear all the lines.
>
> a
Hey All
Thanks for your answers.
Here is the end result.
The equivalent config for "mls qos trust dscp" on a physical interface
on a ME3400 is.
policy-map uplink
class class-default
set dscp dscp
interface gix/y
service-policy input uplink
User friendly clue was:
me3400(config-pmap-c)#se
uRPF is for VRFs in the ME-3400 (strange, isn't it?)
--
Tassos
Adrian Minta wrote on 15/04/2009 12:36:
According to "Cisco ME 3400 data sheet" http://tinyurl.com/yphgj5 the
switch support uRPF with METROIPACCESS image, but I get the following
error:
switch(config)#interface GigabitEthernet0/
Hi there,
even after clearing the vty lines they were still there. I was unable to
telnet to the router.
I had to restart the router to clear all the lines.
any clue what could be the reason ?
thanks.
Perimeter#sh users
Line User Host(s) Idle Location
* 0 con 0 idle 00:00:00
322 vty 0 idle 5w
According to "Cisco ME 3400 data sheet" http://tinyurl.com/yphgj5 the
switch support uRPF with METROIPACCESS image, but I get the following error:
switch(config)#interface GigabitEthernet0/2
switch(config-if)#ip verify unicast reverse-path
% ip verify configuration not supported on interface Gi0/
Mattias,
I believe the default mode is to not change the CoS/DSCP of packets, so you shouldn't have
any problem.
Also, you can use a policy-map under the interface if you want to modify the
above.
--
Tassos
Wyatt Mattias Gyllenvarg wrote on 15/04/2009 09:47:
Hi all!
I've been racking my
Hi Claes
I figured that something like that would work, but it seems a like a
stretch compared too "mls qos trust".
I will run a version of your config for the time being.
Thanks
Mattias Gyllenvarg
2009/4/15 Claes Jansson :
> Hi Mattias!
>
> I've been in the same position as you are now :-) But
43 matches
Mail list logo
