On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 00:26 -0400, Steve Fischer wrote:
This would be more acceptable (at least to me), were this an issue
with a
3560 switch, or a 2800 series router, but this was 2 core switches of
their
flagship product, the 6500. Enterprise data centers throughout the
US. Like
the one
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 22:54 20/09/2009 -0400, Jeff Kell wrote:
Front-line TAC has gotten incomprehensibly bad. The most recent
case came back with info request (this is a direct quote):
To help isolate the issue, *please answer the following questions *
**1. When did you noticed this
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 08:52:32PM -0700, Kevin Graham wrote:
Sorry, the thought of being able to plan forward-looking purchases and
technology migrations this beautifully makes me tingly... _These_
would be the moves of a dominant market leader with a rich innovative
history.
Full
I've seen similar situations where a shaping fine tuning in the carrier
equipment's settings solved the CRC errors.
All the ATM VP/VC related equipment in the circuit should be shaped properly,
depending on what type of service you get, CBR, VBR, etc.
Either too high or too low values could
That will be called the D-Day ?? :-)
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jared Mauch
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:15 PM
To: david raistrick
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp]
Hello,
somewhere at the start of syslog.conf you will see something like:
*.err /dev/sysmsg
*err;kern.debug/var/adm/messages
*.alert;kern.err operator
etc.
change it to something like:
*.err;local0.none /dev/sysmsg
Just an update on this for the archives:
Turned out to be one of the DNS servers specified in the
information pushed by the IPSec/VPN server was not
configured to provide recursive look-ups for the address
space assigned to users when they connect to the VPN.
Figured it out when moving the
On Monday 21 September 2009 12:58:05 pm Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
I've run into this in the past with different vendors,
even on occasions when the most frequently needed
information (show tech, request tech-support, etc...)
is attached to the support case before it gets assigned
to an
hi,
the webex option is worrying when you have a core failure
(and therefore network is unknown useable status)
I think a large swathe of support is going the webex route
where they get you to log in and then they poke around
your system using predetermined flow chart of things to check
(i've
on the other hand,
I open all of my cases with all relevant information and as explanatory
comments as possible. *AND* I immediately call the dispatcher and ask
for the case be requeued to Brussels. Simple, effective. I've yet to see
an engineer from bru ignoring the information that's
There is always a Duty Manager available to escalate faults.
They are non technical but there job is get you the support
you need in critical situations. In the 10 years I have been
dealing daily with the TAC I have spoken to them may 5
times and each time they have done the business.
Regards
Hi all,
Any recommendation of an IOS for a 7206VXR?
I was using the features navigator and I saw that SRD2a and SRC4 are
mostly the same so, what are the differences between both of them?
Thanks in advance.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:01:08PM +0200, luismi wrote:
Any recommendation of an IOS for a 7206VXR?
What exactly are you planning to use the box for?
I was using the features navigator and I saw that SRD2a and SRC4 are
mostly the same so, what are the differences between both of them?
yes, I know we are going to use...
EIGRP, BGP, ACL, PBR, reflexive ACLs, HSRP, GRE tunnels, multicast,
VRFs, EEM, SLA, SNMP, Netflow...
I would like to go also for BFD, OSPF and/or MP-BGP in the future.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
12.4(15)T10
Its the third or fourth bug-fix only release in the 12.4(15)T line of code...
You have a lot of features you want to enable... I would try this one first..
From: luismi asturlui...@gmail.com
To: Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de
Cc:
I using this software:
#sh ver | i IOS
IOS (tm) 7200 Software (C7200-JK9O3S-M), Version 12.3(15b), RELEASE SOFTWARE
(fc1)
2009/9/21 Derick Winkworth dwinkwo...@att.net
12.4(15)T10
Its the third or fourth bug-fix only release in the 12.4(15)T line of
code...
You have a lot of features you
The 3640 has a ATM 1A-OC3MM. The 1500 MTU is hard coded in the config. These
sites were all set up before I started here 2 years ago. We're gradually
replacing the ATM at the older sites with CSME.
thanks!
Steve Pfister
Technical Coordinator,
The Office of Information Technology
Dayton Public
as an aside, the TAC engineer (Indian engineer #4) stuck with it, and has
found the bug that was causing the meltdown. Credit certainly needs to be
given for that.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Alan Buxey a.l.m.bu...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
hi,
the webex option is worrying when you have a core
I didn't tell you, it is a NPE-G2
El lun, 21-09-2009 a las 05:32 -0700, Derick Winkworth escribió:
12.4(15)T10
Its the third or fourth bug-fix only release in the 12.4(15)T line of
code...
You have a lot of features you want to enable... I would try this one
first..
THE BEST way to work with TAC and possibly anticipate failure in your case is
(assuming you don't have backup 6500 to load the intended image in lab) :
1. Open up the TAC case 3 - 4 hrs before upgrading through the web (open w/ P2)
2. Provide all necessary information through web (these
On Monday 21 September 2009 06:01:08 pm luismi wrote:
Any recommendation of an IOS for a 7206VXR?
I was using the features navigator and I saw that SRD2a
and SRC4 are mostly the same so, what are the differences
between both of them?
Would suggest SRC4, although SRC5 will be out end of
On Monday 21 September 2009 08:32:14 pm Derick Winkworth
wrote:
12.4(15)T10
Its the third or fourth bug-fix only release in the
12.4(15)T line of code...
You have a lot of features you want to enable... I would
try this one first..
Before we started out with SRC, we evaluated a single
On Monday 21 September 2009 09:31:48 pm Steven Fischer
wrote:
as an aside, the TAC engineer (Indian engineer #4) stuck
with it, and has found the bug that was causing the
meltdown. Credit certainly needs to be given for that.
Good stuff.
Grateful if you could kindly share any technical
On Monday 21 September 2009 09:32:59 pm luismi wrote:
I didn't tell you, it is a NPE-G2
Then your only options are:
12.4T, 12.4XD, SRC and SRD.
As mentioned before, SRC would be my recommendation. We've
been happy with it.
I was going to warn you about staying away from BFD on the
NPE-G1
the specific bug that caused my issue is *CSCta02715*
Now, I find it scary that a command element related to logging could take
down an array of 6500's. Furthermore, we had been running the SXH5 code
with the logging count command element enabled on two of the four core
switches for 30 days (the
Daniska, Tomas wrote:
(btw - asking for requeue to bru is what everybody reasonable at Cisco
recommends to do - of course for europe...)
Does anyone know what the equivalent would be in the states? I try my
best to open cases first thing in the morning (CST) when I'm likely to
get someone
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 6:33 PM, William McCall william.mcc...@gmail.comwrote:
I would advise you to make sure to fill out the eval among other
things. This is a situation where I'd put all 1's. Make sure to put in
the comments too.
I've been told the bingo scores apply only to the TAC
Ask your account team to sign you up for the Walker Survey. That's what
it's for and you can say whatever you want. Typically you get to review
every aspect of your service with Cisco in the yearly version although
they have different versions they do send out that may specifically
reference one
You guys are starting to frighten me. I've got 6500s running H4, I1 and
I2, and it's hard for me to say which of any of the releases are any
good - meanwhile, the TAC is busy chasing down why they're randomly
corrupting my NAT tables.
(I finally got a full capture of the incident where very
On Monday 21 September 2009 10:45:43 pm Steven Fischer
wrote:
the specific bug that caused my issue is *CSCta02715*
Many thanks, and best of luck moving forward.
Cheers,
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Hello group,
I have a ES20 interface configured with L2 services via the service instance
command. Now i would like to add L3 services to the
same physical interface but i noticed a problem with IPv6:
7600#
7600#conf t
Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.
7600(config)#!
Hi,
I wanted SXI for something, I can't remember what - maybe I should have
stayed back at SXF8. :(
:-) SXF was, in the main, quite good. we had to move because of
feature support etc only being in the latest trains. SXI because of
longterm support (which SXH doesnt have)usually the bugs
I've got a few customers on T1's that are split for data and voice. These
T's are currently coming in on a standard T1 serial card in a 7513 chassis.
I'm trying to move them to a channelized DS3 card. I've got the channel
groups split and setup as needed but the T1 never comes up. Anyone know
Steve,
I have been through all that you mention myself. That being said, I have
had very good luck in requesting TAC in Mexico or Australia for late
night escalation assistance. *WARNING horrible generalization to follow*
- I have had very good luck with the skill sets found in both places.
Todd wrote:
I've got a few customers on T1's that are split for data and voice. These
T's are currently coming in on a standard T1 serial card in a 7513 chassis.
I'm trying to move them to a channelized DS3 card. I've got the channel
groups split and setup as needed but the T1 never comes up.
Does anyone know of a good article, table or chart that compares the
various T3 and T1 PA options? I've found a variety of docs but nothing
of them giving a clear and concise list of differences between the PAs
(features, chassis support, NPE support, etc).
PA-T3
PA-T3+
PA-MC-T3
PA-MC-T3+
Justin Shore wrote:
Does anyone know of a good article, table or chart that compares the
various T3 and T1 PA options? I've found a variety of docs but nothing
of them giving a clear and concise list of differences between the PAs
(features, chassis support, NPE support, etc).
PA-T3
PA-T3+
Not to ask a dumb question, but...
What is the point of the 12.2SR train, vs 12.4/12.4T? Besides internal
Cisco infighting over who-knows-what in the 7600/6500 split?
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Oh, you are not alone!
Greg Ferro has defined it:
http://etherealmind.com/network-dictionary-tacrathon/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
Hi there,
On a recently T1 PtP deployment, I noticed that one end is getting a high
number of ³Total output drops². 51 in the last 24 minutes.
No other errors or abnormalities on this one side, and the other side is at
0.
What could cause this? My T1 debugging skills are still in novice mode.
Hello,
We have a customer with load-balanced path to us. TCP throughput is
affected by some out-of-order packets, and we were looking for a way to
queue the interface in order to try and mitigate this. Is it possible
to use any queueing mechanism to re-order packets received from this
customer
chris.f...@yahoo.ca wrote:
Hello,
We have a customer with load-balanced path to us. TCP throughput is
affected by some out-of-order packets, and we were looking for a way to
queue the interface in order to try and mitigate this. Is it possible
to use any queueing mechanism to re-order packets
Is a different load balancing algorithm possible here? Perhaps flow-based
load-balancing instead of packet-based would solve the problem. Less
throughputachieved per flow but it should balance itself out when you factor
in all the other flows. Plus no out-of-order packets.Justin
Hello,
Hi James,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:22 AM, james edwards
lists.james.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
This is on the 2811, I get this error:
I/f GigabitEthernet0/2/0 class class-default requested bandwidth 50%,
available only 25%
You're getting this message because, by default, IOS enforces an
Hi James,
I/f GigabitEthernet0/2/0 class class-default requested bandwidth 50%,
available only 25%
I am trying a allocate 50 % (10 megs) to the storserv and the rest to the
default class.
By default you can only allocated up to 75% of the link bandwidth for
QOS policies, the rest is
Thanks John.
Your suggestion did the trick.
Much appreciated.
Cheers.
Andy
-Original Message-
From: John Kougoulos [mailto:k...@intracom.gr]
Sent: Monday, 21 September 2009 6:03 PM
To: Andy Saykao
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Router logs going to dmesg
Hello,
On 9/18/09 5:59 AM, Eric Van Tol wrote:
My impression is that they take their feedback from customers that
don't use the Cisco site all that often and are caught up in the
mythical Web 2.0 garbage that keeps infecting the internet.
Except that, in Cisco's case, it's Web 2.0(45a)SXB12b. And
On Sep 21, 2009, at 9:51 PM, Michael Sinatra wrote:
On 9/18/09 5:59 AM, Eric Van Tol wrote:
My impression is that they take their feedback from customers that
don't use the Cisco site all that often and are caught up in the
mythical Web 2.0 garbage that keeps infecting the internet.
Except
48 matches
Mail list logo
