So I can only have BFD + eBGP if its on a physical port ?
Does the same apply to SVI + OSPF ?
Any known reason for this limitiation ?
(Waiting for my test 7606s to arrive!)
Dean
- Original Message -
From: Justin Shore jus...@justinshore.com
To: Walter Keen
1518 = 1500 payload(ie IP) + 18Byte ethernet header and trailer
You need the 6148A to go higher
Brian
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of falz
Sent: mercoledì 29 luglio 2009 20.04
To:
Hi Folks.
Can someone help me out here, I looking at some problems regarding HREAP on
LWAPP access points. Wee have four SSID's on each access point, futher more we
have an mng vlan. The mng vlan is native.
The clients that access the ssid that we use for adm. personnel should get an
addr from
On 29/07/2009 19:04, falz wrote:
Trying to avoid purchasing WS-X6516-GE-TX or WS-X6748-GE-TX if possible.
Why avoid the 6748 card? The 65xx and 61xx cards are certainly low-spec
pieces of kit, but I've always found the 6748 to be rather good for a pure
LAN card. Ok, there are certain
The response I got when I asked was that it was an unintended feature.
That may be the case but it was working just fine. I wish they'd add
the feature. It's really important for 7600s that serve access
functions along with core/distribution functions. The only other
solution is to burn
Jay Nakamura wrote:
Did you force the DR to be the hub by setting the priority?
Yes. And confirmed.
I forgot, did you set it to broadcast or multipoint?
broadcast
I'd suggest you look at the packet capture feature and get a trace when it's
down.
Is this what you are referring to?
Turn on:
config t
ip cef account load per pre hash
Just type it..it's hidden.
And then get sh ip cef dstprefix internal and send.
Then get 'sh cef int' and send.
Also a couple snapshots of 'sh int stat' after a clear counters..
Rodney
Security Team wrote:
I rebooted a 7507 router that
Hi Rodney:
I get errors on the commands:
#config t
Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.
(config)#ip cef account load per pre hash
^
% Invalid input detected at '^' marker.
(config)#ip cef account load per prehash
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Nick Hilliardn...@inex.ie wrote:
On 29/07/2009 19:04, falz wrote:
Trying to avoid purchasing WS-X6516-GE-TX or WS-X6748-GE-TX if possible.
Why avoid the 6748 card? The 65xx and 61xx cards are certainly low-spec
pieces of kit, but I've always found the 6748
On 30/07/2009 13:25, falz wrote:
6748 would be my ideal choice, but the cost is prohibitive.
A 6148 has the same switching power as 6 separate 8-port 1 gig hubs,
aggregated into a single gig switch with uplink to the rest of the chassis.
A 6748 gives you about 37 fully nonblocking gig
I appreciate all the feedback I received. The product of that feedback is
this NAGIOS plugin:
http://exchange.nagios.org/directory/Plugins/Network-Protocols/*-Routing/BGP
%252D4/check_bgp_counters/details
Regards,
Frank
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
Unless you do per-packet load-sharing (which you don't want to do since
it's cpu switched), the path is session based. If most of the traffic is
going from one source to one destination, it won't be load-shared. What do
the routing tables look like in both directions?
Matthew Huff |
-Original Message-
From: sth...@nethelp.no [mailto:sth...@nethelp.no]
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Humor: Cisco announces end of BGP
My feeling is based on two things:
I don't like the idea of vendors/providers ignoring an RFC just because.
And note the RFC in question leaves no wiggle
Well.we arent' doing per packet and the destinations are definitely
different.
The last time this problem occurred I did a clear ip cache and it went away.
Since it isn't doing it this time I guess I thought I should try something
else.
Here is what I tried, I tried converting to multilink
I am looking to use it on vlan interfaces, I have one with 12.2(33)SRC2
and it appears to support the option in the config, but I wanted to know
if there were known bugs before I deployed it.
We have a situation where a peer currently connected via bgp at two
locations has traffic routed to
Here is what I have on a multi-link with ATT.
interface Multilink1
description X
ip address XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX 255.255.255.252
load-interval 30
no keepalive
no cdp enable
ppp multilink
ppp multilink fragment disable
ppp multilink group 1
interface Serial1/0:0
description XXX
We had a problem with balancing 3 T1s between 2 T1s on a dual port T1
controller WIC and the 3rd on a single port service module. Cisco TAC swore up
and down that it SHOULD balance between the 2 types of WICs but more traffic
was being sent over the WIC T1-DSU. Replacing the WIC 1-DSU with the
CJ,
I don´t know if happens on 7500, but on 7200 if you config MLPPP using
links connected in different slots, even same PA, occurs problems like
stop traffic without reason or the MLPPP is down.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Security Teamci...@peakpeak.com wrote:
Well.we arent' doing
Hi all,
I use
1000BASE-LX/LH (GLC-LH-SM), on both Catalyst and 7206 NPE-G2,
interface and protocol are up but I cannot do anything, what am I missing?
Regards.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Please cite chapter and verse. As long as you use static IPv6 addresses,
/126
is fine. No, a /126 address does *not* have to be based on a 64 bit
interface
ID.
Sure ...
RFC4291
2.5.1
For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
value 000, Interface IDs
None. There is no common carrier between the two. The US has plenty
to choose from. The Middle East has very few, all buying from one or
two top tier in-region carriers.
It is also likely that you will have to use a VPN between the sites,
as any type of SIP/RTP/H.323 is likely to be
Looking back on tickets, it seems like this problem started happening
after upgrading from 12.4(15)T5 to 12.4(24)T. Before the upgrade, it
was running solid for a year.
I have tried 12.4(24)T1 but that doesn't seem to have any effect. I
can't go below 12.4(20)T because we want to deploy IOS
Care to post the configuration? So maybe some of us who think that this
problem is interesting could plug it into dynamips and check it out for you?
Have you tried to remove the configuration and put it back? Maybe add a few
loopback interfaces and advertise them?
Regards,
Thanks I appreciate the tips guys.
I ended up contacting TAC about it and am waiting to hear back. I got pretty
far with MLPPP (and talking the customer through the mods) and was seeing
the lines properly balance sending traffic to the customer, but they weren't
able to route out so this seems
All of this is further confirmation that if its IP that you need to send
over multiple T1's, much better to get an ADC or like box that does Ethernet
over one or more raw T-1's. Abstracts the whole transport issue, and
gives Ethernet interfaces on both sides.
Frank
-Original Message-
Luan Nguyen wrote:
Care to post the configuration? So maybe some of us who think that this
problem is interesting could plug it into dynamips and check it out for you?
Have you tried to remove the configuration and put it back? Maybe add a few
loopback interfaces and advertise them?
I'd
Cisco TAC swore up and down that it SHOULD balance between the 2
types of WICs but more traffic was being sent over the WIC T1-DSU.
Replacing the WIC 1-DSU with the controller did the trick.
Ran into a similar problem mixing the T1 VWIC's (when they were new)
and WIC-1DSU-T1's. One type of
We are going to be deploying some more MLPPP ckts here in the next few months
and I am not familiar with ADCs. Are those carrier dependant? Does this affect
MPLS QoS?
Thanks,
-Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk - iName.com [mailto:frnk...@iname.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 30,
Jeff Wojciechowski wrote:
We had a problem with balancing 3 T1s between 2 T1s on a dual port T1
controller WIC and the 3rd on a single port service module. Cisco TAC swore
up and down that it SHOULD balance between the 2 types of WICs but more
traffic was being sent over the WIC T1-DSU.
I wrote ADC but I meant, RAD, my fault.
http://www.ethernetaccess.com/Home/0,6583,19337,00.html
These basically bond T-1s and are carrier independent. All that either end
sees is an Ethernet port. They appear to have QoS priority queues, thought
I'm not personally familiar with this product to
Here is the config (edited for real IP info, passwords, etc)...
Hub - Main
aaa new-model
!
ip cef
!
crypto isakmp policy 1
encr aes
authentication pre-share
group 2
crypto isakmp key address 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0
crypto isakmp keepalive 10
!
!
crypto ipsec transform-set AES128SHA esp-aes
Hi, I'm having the following issue.
Background
I have two networks one public 206.x.x.77/27 and internal 10.18.x.253/27. I
wish to open port 80 to the world and allow web traffic.
I've added the following static line.
static (inside,outside) tcp 206.x.x.77 80 10.18.x.253 80 netmask
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Scott Granados
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 3:19 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] problem creating a static on Pix
Hi, I'm having the following
Thx all and i will think about Gulfstream Daryl :)
but i start to think about P2P connections like ATT IPL (International
Private Line) or ATM PVC between both sites , what do you think ? what is
the estimated cost for 2M connection ?
best regards
Andy
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Daryl
Your access list need to have the OUTSIDE address in it, as this is what will
be in the packets arriving on the outside interface of your PIX eg:
access-list acl-outside permit ip any host 206.x.x.77 eq 80
This URL:
also SVC will be better
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Andy William awilliam1...@gmail.comwrote:
Thx all and i will think about Gulfstream Daryl :)
but i start to think about P2P connections like ATT IPL (International
Private Line) or ATM PVC between both sites , what do you think ? what
Cool, this really helps.
I also have an acl applied to the inside interface. Would I have to add the
inside IP to that ACL as well, is this a bidirectional arrangement?
Thank you again
- Original Message -
From: Michael K. Smith - Adhost mksm...@adhost.com
To: Scott Granados
Mike, thank you this points me in the right direction.
Thanks!!!
Scott
- Original Message -
From: Michael K. Smith - Adhost mksm...@adhost.com
To: Scott Granados gsgrana...@comcast.net; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 3:51 PM
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] problem
Hello Scott:
-Original Message-
From: Scott Granados [mailto:gsgrana...@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 3:50 PM
To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] problem creating a static on Pix
Cool, this really helps.
I also have an acl
Hi there,
Not much out there on this for the Sup32. But since the Sup32 is a upgraded
MSFC2, will the config register ³0x42² bypass the config?
Someone borked up the aaa auth and I can't get into it. Bah.
Thanks,
-graham
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
Hi Graham -
The same rules for confreg that apply to the other c6k sups apply here as well.
Typical/recommended for sup32 is 0x2102. To
ignore config 0x2142 will do it. 0x42 should work
too, but for one thing, ignore break will be
disabled, which is not desirable (router can drop
to rommon
Hi All,
I'm facing a issue in Cisco 12416 request your help -
show GSR -
Slot 19 type = Switch Fabric Card 16XOC192
state = Administratively Down, Powered
how to take it out of this Administratively down state to powered state.
My IOS version is 12.0(32)SY6
Regards
Jack
Hi All,
We've got an IPSEC tunnel configured with another provider for the
exchange of some sensitive data and I wanted to know if there was a way
to monitor the IPSEC tunnel to ensure it was up.
We're using a Cisco 3640 running 12.2(46a).
I've checked the mibs for this hardware platform
43 matches
Mail list logo
