Re: [c-nsp] ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL)

Hi, On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 09:32:37AM +1000, David Hughes wrote: > If there's a 4 slot chassis in the 2nd generation then I could > see N7K and N5K / N4K as a possible end-to-end platform for L3/MPLS > core, L2/L3 aggregation, and L2 access. And it would all run the > same software !!! Pinch me

[c-nsp] PA-MC-8T1

Hi all, Just wanted to confirm before I spend the money I am looking at the WAN card PA-MC-8T1 for some T1 aggregation points, inserted into FlexWAN/6500. As I am reading the data sheet for it, it looks like it can do non-channelized connections, right? Need to consolidate down some non-fr

[c-nsp] 3560 acl issue

My 3560 appears to have run into some trouble. My VPN just dropped and all traffic from the VPN address was rejected by the 3560 even though no changes had been made to the device in weeks. I flipped the ACL on the external port by moving it from ACL 100 to ACL 101 and back to ACL100. Th

[c-nsp] Tarig Hamdi is out of the office.

I will be out of the office starting 11/26/2009 and will not return until 12/12/2009. I will be away for 2 weeks with very limited access to email. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp

Re: [c-nsp] ipv6 cheat sheet

You can subnet ipv6 with your eyeballs, just add or subtract 4 from the prefix length for every character you move to the left or right. 1234:1234:1234:1234::/64 1234:1234:1234:123X::/60 1234:1234:1234:12XX::/56 1234:1234:1234:1XXX::/52 1234:1234:1234::/48 etc -Original Message- From: ci

Re: [c-nsp] IRIS Project

On 16/11/2009, at 12:58 AM, luismi wrote: > IS there anyone in this mailing list involved with the IRIS project? i can put you in contact with the relevant folks if you want. there are links to folks at http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/government/space-routing.html its been a big week for IRIS

[c-nsp] ipv6 cheat sheet

Hello guys, Did you find any cheat sheet for IPv6 subnetting anywhere? _ Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail you. http://www.microsoft.com/midd

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL)

On 26/11/2009, at 5:46 AM, Łukasz Bromirski wrote: > As for something for the next-gen - 8200... competitors would like 6500 > to be dead soon, because after all those rants it still wins the deals, > it is still a platform of choice for technical not marketing reasons, > and it still, after so m

Re: [c-nsp] FABRIC-3-ERR_HANDLE

Cool /eninja On Nov 25, 2009, at 12:22 PM, "Antonio Soares" wrote: Just to let you know that the problem is resolved after the CSC0 replacement. Thanks. Regards, Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (R&S) amsoa...@netcabo.pt From: Eninja [mailto:eni...@gmail.com] Sent: quarta-feira, 18 de

Re: [c-nsp] [j-nsp] Network Liberation Movement???

Snippet: >The university I worked at as a student did a > whole campus replacement of Cisco for ProCurve. > > ~Seth I'm involved in an 'alternative switch vendor' discussion and lab testing. ProCurve and Juniper switches are in our lab and undergoing some poking and proding. I am not at all fami

Re: [c-nsp] is a DWDM SFP a DWDM SFP?

> From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net > [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering > Actually, what Cisco did is *create* a market for counterfeit optics. What the BU's did was create a market for grey market (aka counterfeit) optics, memory, flash devices I ha

Re: [c-nsp] is a DWDM SFP a DWDM SFP?

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:17:56AM -0500, Scott McGrath wrote: >> I can see their point especially in SP networks and to keep the >> counterfeit optics at bay > > Actually, what Cisco did is *create* a market for counterfeit optics. I

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL)

On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Gert Doering wrote: >>> >>> - as a customer, you really can't trust Cisco to make reasonable >>> decisions (did I mention the BU split? and IOS and hardware support >>> pain?) - even Cisco's stock price sucks, so the usual argument "but >>> it was good for the

Re: [c-nsp] is a DWDM SFP a DWDM SFP?

Hi, On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:17:56AM -0500, Scott McGrath wrote: > I can see their point especially in SP networks and to keep the > counterfeit optics at bay Actually, what Cisco did is *create* a market for counterfeit optics. There's chinese out there that will sell you a crappy and dirt-c

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL)

Hi, On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 09:30:23PM +0100, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote: > On 2009-11-25 21:22, Gert Doering wrote: > > > - 6500/7600 split. They ("the 7600 camp") get the fast CPU, we get the > >reasonable 10G linecards (and got the 10G sup first). > > Yeah. We all live in a material world.

[c-nsp] NTP Debug options shortened

Did anyone else notice that the NTP debug options has gotten rather short lately in the 12.4T releases? From 24T2: 7206-1# debug ntp ? adjustNTP clock adjustments all NTP all debugging on core NTP core messages eventsNTP events packetNTP packet debugging refcl

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL)

On 2009-11-25 21:22, Gert Doering wrote: - 6500/7600 split. They ("the 7600 camp") get the fast CPU, we get the reasonable 10G linecards (and got the 10G sup first). Yeah. We all live in a material world. But the CPU on the MSFC4 on Sup2T will be fast. - confusing strategy regarding

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL)

Hi, On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 08:46:37PM +0100, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote: > The new EARL - EARL8 is already there - as the PFC for Nexus 7k. It will > also be the part of next-gen Sup "2T" and DFCs for LCs in the 6500E. Ah, so it will come to 6500, not to 7600. Heh! (I wonder what IOS train will su

Re: [c-nsp] Problem with dscp packets marking on 76th platform.

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Teslenko wrote: PE2#sh policy-map test-Out Policy Map test-Out Class test Class class-default PE2#sh class-map test Class Map match-all test (id 27) Match ip dscp 39 [...] PE2# sh policy-map interface Gi1.205 output class test GigabitEthernet1.205 Service-policy

Re: [c-nsp] is a DWDM SFP a DWDM SFP?

My devices don't seem to have the unsupported-transceiver knob, so no. From: Justin Shore [jus...@justinshore.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 11:41 AM To: Bill Blackford Cc: Scott McGrath; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] is a DWDM

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL)

On 2009-11-25 08:42, Gert Doering wrote: We might see a "Cisco 8200" appear, which is the same as 6500 and 7600, but with a different EEPROM and yet another chassis colour. Supported by a new BU, and all the new and fancy supervisor boards will only support the 8200 (and the 6500, but only if y

Re: [c-nsp] is a DWDM SFP a DWDM SFP?

On 25/11/2009 16:17, Scott McGrath wrote: I can see their point especially in SP networks and to keep the counterfeit optics at bay but we have the same problem CSCO does not make the optics we need in many cases and in the LAN environment it makes even less sense, As unless a optic is egregiousl

Re: [c-nsp] is a DWDM SFP a DWDM SFP?

Bill Blackford wrote: I do not believe that Juniper keys their optics. My experience with this is limited though. I am able to get third-party optics to work just fine in EX switches. bblackf...@wsc-asw-02-1> show chassis hardware Hardware inventory: Item Version Part number Seri

Re: [c-nsp] Problem with dscp packets marking on 76th platform.

Nicolás Leiva пишет: > You might want to review > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/configuration/guide/mplsqos.html#wp1509501 There are nothing new for me here I tried to say following When router added mpls label in header of packet then dscp field became

Re: [c-nsp] Secondary VLAN deployment on Metro ETTH

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Pavel Skovajsa wrote: > Hi, > > yes that is right UNI ports can't talk to each other but only within one > ME3400 switch. If you have more switches and want exactly the same > "switchport protected" functionality on all of them, one solution is to > implement PVLA

Re: [c-nsp] is a DWDM SFP a DWDM SFP?

I can see their point especially in SP networks and to keep the counterfeit optics at bay but we have the same problem CSCO does not make the optics we need in many cases and in the LAN environment it makes even less sense,As unless a optic is egregiously bad it generally will not matter bu

Re: [c-nsp] Problem with dscp packets marking on 76th platform.

You might want to review http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/configuration/guide/mplsqos.html#wp1509501 . Nicolas On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Teslenko wrote: > selamat pagi пишет: > > What's the config on the ingress interface of PE1 ? > > Do you use VPNs

Re: [c-nsp] is a DWDM SFP a DWDM SFP?

As you've shown, Juniper devices will recognize 3rd party SFPs. However, about a year ago(if memory serves) they changed their T&C to not provide (technical) support for non-Juniper SFPs. If you have a problem with the card that the 3rd party SFP resides on, chances are they're going to tell y

Re: [c-nsp] is a DWDM SFP a DWDM SFP?

I do not believe that Juniper keys their optics. My experience with this is limited though. I am able to get third-party optics to work just fine in EX switches. bblackf...@wsc-asw-02-1> show chassis hardware Hardware inventory: Item Version Part number Serial number Descriptio

Re: [c-nsp] is a DWDM SFP a DWDM SFP?

Scott McGrath wrote: Or Cisco could do something RADICAL and actually support the industry standard optics model like they USED to for GBIC's I can understand their position on 3rd-party optics not meeting spec and not inter-opting well. I've seen that many times myself on 3rd-party opti

Re: [c-nsp] Problem with dscp packets marking on 76th platform.

selamat pagi пишет: > What's the config on the ingress interface of PE1 ? > Do you use VPNs (vrf interface) ? > Is TE active ? I have understood that it has misled you ping from CE Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.10.10.5, timeout is 2

[c-nsp] Re : OT: VSS + MEC - port-channel dynamically cloned?

___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

[c-nsp] Re : Re: OT: VSS + MEC - port-channel dynamically cloned?

___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] is a DWDM SFP a DWDM SFP?

> Also there is great matrix for which module goes where on: > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/transceiver_modules/compa tibility/matrix/OL_6981.pdf While this is a good link, it doesn't tell the whole story for all platforms. For example, in the ME3750 the matrix says that the

Re: [c-nsp] is a DWDM SFP a DWDM SFP?

Or Cisco could do something RADICAL and actually support the industry standard optics model like they USED to for GBIC'sSure TAC would only support the Cisco optics which is fair, but being able to use any optic that is physically present is PRICELESS.And I can see customers whining abo

Re: [c-nsp] Problem with dscp packets marking on 76th platform.

What's the config on the ingress interface of PE1 ? Do you use VPNs (vrf interface) ? Is TE active ? cheers, ketimun On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Teslenko wrote: > Hello All, > > We try to introduce Qos in ours IP/MPLS backbone network, > constructed on routers 7600th series > > All 76-s'

Re: [c-nsp] Runts in the network

Thank you for your feedback. This is actually frame-relay. But your post made me think and i found this interesting statement: "There is no commonly implemented minimum or maximum frame size for Frame Relay, although a network must support at least a 262-octet. Generally, each Frame Relay provid

Re: [c-nsp] Runts in the network

you know these are frames with a frame size between 8 and 63 bytes with a valid CRC and no alignment errors. if this is the case, you may or may not have a problem. depending on the type of equipment, the vendor maybe using nonstandard frames. these frames are interpreted as runts. however, runts m

Re: [c-nsp] Runts in the network

Any ideas how to troubleshoot this ? Thanks. Regards, Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (R&S) amsoa...@netcabo.pt -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Antonio Soares Sent: terça-feira, 24 de Novembro de 2009 11:4

Re: [c-nsp] is a DWDM SFP a DWDM SFP?

+1 - there is a part of Cisco called "Transceiver Module Group" that should take care of this. Also there is great matrix for which module goes where on: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/transceiver_modules/compatibility/matrix/OL_6981.pdf

Re: [c-nsp] FABRIC-3-ERR_HANDLE

Just to let you know that the problem is resolved after the CSC0 replacement. Thanks. Regards, Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (R&S) amsoa...@netcabo.pt _ From: Eninja [mailto:eni...@gmail.com] Sent: quarta-feira, 18 de Novembro de 2009 7:40 To: Aaron Cc: Antonio Soares; cisco-nsp@

Re: [c-nsp] Secondary VLAN deployment on Metro ETTH

Hi, yes that is right UNI ports can't talk to each other but only within one ME3400 switch. If you have more switches and want exactly the same "switchport protected" functionality on all of them, one solution is to implement PVLANs. See http://www.rfc-editor.org/internet-drafts/draft-sanjib-priv

[c-nsp] Problem with dscp packets marking on 76th platform.

Hello All, We try to introduce Qos in ours IP/MPLS backbone network, constructed on routers 7600th series All 76-s' are P or PE devices should accept from outside MPLS or IP traffic. On PE devices we mark packages and we want, that DSCP was transferred transparently within MPLS domain. But we ha

Re: [c-nsp] Secondary VLAN deployment on Metro ETTH

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:09:12 +0100, you wrote: > Probably I do not have luck for proper audience for the questions below, > whatever the case I have began to test the Private VLAN deployment, and ran > into strange packet drop issue. > > The test topology is simple: C7606 Gi1/22 -fiber->

Re: [c-nsp] Secondary VLAN deployment on Metro ETTH

Hello, Probably I do not have luck for proper audience for the questions below, whatever the case I have began to test the Private VLAN deployment, and ran into strange packet drop issue. The test topology is simple: C7606 Gi1/22 -fiber-> Gi0/1 ME3400-24TS-A -> Fa0/3 client PC The PVLAN

Re: [c-nsp] is a DWDM SFP a DWDM SFP?

On 25/11/2009 03:53, Justin Shore wrote: I REALLY wish all Cisco BUs would pick a set of optics and make them universal across ALL Cisco product lines. This crap of some products supporting only GLC- or some only support SFP- or some only supporting ONS- optics is a damn joke. Yes I know that ON

Re: [c-nsp] Metro Ethernet Switches

hi justin thanks for the reply actually i figured out what was the issue it was due to entering 0 (unencrypted) or 7 (encrypted) : > Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:11:17 -0600 > From: jus...@justinshore.com > To: bblackf...@nwresd.k12.or.us > CC: eng_m...@hotmail.com; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Sub

Re: [c-nsp] (BGP identifier wrong) error on majority of ebgp peers

Andy Davidson wrote: > Seemingly without a config change, there are some sessions which refuse to > establish, because of a bgp notification : > %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: received from neighbor XXX 2/3 (BGP identifier wrong) > 4 bytes XXX > The router-id has not been changed - it was using the address f