On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 12:46:04PM -0500, Bulleri, Carlos wrote:
> I'm replacing a 2924 XL switch with a 2960 48TC-S
>
> The 2924 currently links to a 6913 and to another 2924 through the 2
> 100BaseFX interfaces. I want to make sure that I can get at lease the link to
> the 6913 switch to worm
On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 21:28 +0200, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
> On 2009-05-08 21:18, Stephen Kratzer wrote:
>
> > The ASR is certainly a better choice, but cost is an overriding factor. Does
> > anything in particular makes the 7600 a poor choice aside from the existence
> > of better alternatives? T
List,
I'm in the process of bringing up my first SONET APS-protected
(single-router APS) link, and it's been an adventure. Aside from the
carrier having to tickle their DACS cross-connect to get the circuit to
work, and learning that I needed to use the Loopback0 address as the APS
protect a
Sent from my Windows Mobile® phone.
-Original Message-
From: nbernad...@gallantsys.com
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 1:06 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Question on CRS-MSC-40G
When you purchase a CRS-MSC-40G default, does it come with 40Gbps
license/sofware embedded
I would tend to agree - ASR series from Cisco would be next upgrade, at
least that's where we're headed at some point I think
To answer your original question though, we've found on the 7206VXR-NPE2G
that we'll run out of CPU long before IDB's. Here's a box running at
average of 30% CPU at an
I'm sorry I didn't get an answer in your last email..
regards,
Nathaniel Bernadeau
Gallant Systems, LLC
11064 Livingston RD Suite 106-C
Fort Washington, MD 20744
Toll Free: 888-836-3751
Ph: 301-627-6358
Fax: 240-823-6897
Cell: 202-246-2229
nbernad...@gallantsys.com
www.gallantsys.com
Quoting
When you purchase a CRS-MSC-40G default, does it come with 40Gbps
license/sofware embedded in the MSC or do you have to put in a key
code or CD ROM to access 40 gig license?
--
regards,
Nathaniel Bernadeau
Gallant Systems, LLC
11064 Livingston RD Suite 106-C
Fort Washington, MD 20744
Toll F
On 2009-05-08 21:18, Stephen Kratzer wrote:
The ASR is certainly a better choice, but cost is an overriding factor. Does
anything in particular makes the 7600 a poor choice aside from the existence
of better alternatives? Thanks.
Define what you're doing currently on the 7200. If you expect to
Kim , Jongwon wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> It is somewhat away from the topic , but I need your help.
>
>
>
> I'd like to know current IP Transit service price in US.
It can vary wildly depending on where you are in the country and who
you're buying from. In a quest to move my facility this ye
On Friday 08 May 2009 14:17:58 Adam Armstrong wrote:
> Stephen Kratzer wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > We're looking to step up from the 7200 series to the 7600 series for DSL
> > aggregation. Anyone know what the IDB limit is for this platform (#show
> > idb)? We're at about 15000. Thanks.
>
> Isn't the 7
Stephen Kratzer wrote:
On Friday 08 May 2009 14:17:58 Adam Armstrong wrote:
Stephen Kratzer wrote:
All,
We're looking to step up from the 7200 series to the 7600 series for DSL
aggregation. Anyone know what the IDB limit is for this platform (#show
idb)? We're at about 15000. Thanks.
Hi All,
It is somewhat away from the topic , but I need your help.
I'd like to know current IP Transit service price in US.
Is Tier1 price cheaper than Tier2 or vice versa?
Any comments will be appreciated.
Kim, Jongwon(Jeff)
Network Director
Stephen Kratzer wrote:
All,
We're looking to step up from the 7200 series to the 7600 series for DSL
aggregation. Anyone know what the IDB limit is for this platform (#show idb)?
We're at about 15000. Thanks.
Isn't the 7600 a particularly bad choice for this job?
Wouldn't an ASR1K be bett
Hello Marcelo:
> I'm working in a migration of a CheckPoint Firewall to an ASA5520. I
> freeze
> on a situation that seems ASA cannot "reproduce" CheckPoint
> configuration.
> Follow the scenario:
>
> - IP Address X on the Internet access IP Address X1 in the Inside
> network
> through the X-NAT
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Jose wrote:
Well, according to the TAC case I had opened on this, it seems that because
the SUP32 has its TCAM full and is getting exception errors (it has the full
internet routing tables), this is likely the culprit to why uRPF in loose
mode is not behaving as expected.
Arie,
We're running at about 75% of the IDB limit on the 7200s, but I believe we're
suffering from an IOS bug affecting the reclaiming of IDBs for virtual
interfaces. In the absence of this bug or behavior, IDB limits shouldn't be a
limiting factor.
What kind of hardware module limitations mig
7609/RSP720 (SRD)
Maximum number of Software IDBs 49152. In use 254.
7606/SUP720-3BXL (SRB)
Maximum number of Software IDBs 49152. In use 107.
6509/SUP720-3BXL (SXI)
Maximum number of Software IDBs 12000. In use 146.
strange...
--
Tassos
Elmar K. Bins wrote on 08/05/2009 16:03:
kratz...@
Stephan,
Actually, scalability numbers on 7600 for DSL or broadband aggregation
is not really directly related to IDB numbers, but to the scale of the
HW modules - as sessions are terminated on distributed hardware
resources.
Arie
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.ne
kratz...@ctinetworks.com (Stephen Kratzer) wrote:
> All,
>
> We're looking to step up from the 7200 series to the 7600 series for DSL
> aggregation. Anyone know what the IDB limit is for this platform (#show idb)?
> We're at about 15000. Thanks.
My 6503/SUP720 says:
!
rt#sh idb
Maximu
On Fri, May 08, 2009, Jeff Kell wrote:
> Don't have this problem with 3560s and up, they behave as expected.
> (Just verified on a 3560 w/12.2(35)SE). Appears to be a 3550-thing.
> Maybe I just need a stimulus upgrade grant :-)
Have you tried it on a 3550 running 12.2?
Adrian
Jon Lewis wrote:
> I didn't think ACL logging worked in either direction on the 3550. I
> ran across something even more disturbing recently. A customer had an
> apparently compromised system found SSH scanning remote hosts. I put
> a simple ACL on the customer's layer 3 port (i.e. no switchport
All,
We're looking to step up from the 7200 series to the 7600 series for DSL
aggregation. Anyone know what the IDB limit is for this platform (#show idb)?
We're at about 15000. Thanks.
Stephen Kratzer
Network Engineer
CTI Networks, Inc.
___
cisco-nsp
Hi,
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 09:54:40AM +0200, Lukasz Bromirski wrote:
> But the BU is already focused on adding services, not extending routing
> capabilities.
I never understood why people always think you need to "extend routing
capabilities" on a box that perfectly well does whatever it needs
Hi,
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 09:38:34AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2009, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> >The 6500/Sup720-3BXL combo will do the job reasonably well :-) (and it's
> >not actually "positioned as a switch for enterprises").
>
> ... and the RSP720 is the same listprice
I think the setup you're trying to do is supported only on 7600s.
We use the following on our 7200s:
class-map type traffic match-any TEST-CLASS
match access-group input name IN-ACL
match access-group output name OUT-ACL
!
policy-map type service TEST-POLICY
1 class type traffic TEST-CLASS
On 2009-05-08 09:12, Gert Doering wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 12:24:58AM +0200, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote:
If you're looking for edge BGP peering router, you should look at
ASR 1k series, not 6500 which is positioned as a switch for enterprises.
The 6500/Sup720-3BXL combo will do the job reaso
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Gert Doering wrote:
The 6500/Sup720-3BXL combo will do the job reasonably well :-) (and it's
not actually "positioned as a switch for enterprises").
... and the RSP720 is the same listprice and has a much quicker CPU, so I
hope people do get that one instead of the SUP720
Hi,
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 12:24:58AM +0200, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote:
> If you're looking for edge BGP peering router, you should look at
> ASR 1k series, not 6500 which is positioned as a switch for enterprises.
The 6500/Sup720-3BXL combo will do the job reasonably well :-) (and it's
not actuall
28 matches
Mail list logo
