[c-nsp] sla metrics report

Hello I'm trying to see if anyone used any open source tools that shows you a nice sla metric for rtt or packet loss just like these from savvis and internethealthreport: http://ipsla.savvis.net/Matrix.jsp?report=T®ion=US-US&refresh=60 http://www.internethealthreport.com/Main.aspx?xAxis=Metric&yA

[c-nsp] MTU at Gb/sec transit and higher

I apologize if this is somewhat off-topic. I searched for this and found almost no information. I found this, but it's almost 10 years old and it seems like he gave up: http://staff.psc.edu/mathis/MTU/ 1. If I purchase GbE transit from a provider what size is the MTU likely to be? Is it still ~

Re: [c-nsp] Cheap 10G between 7600 and Procurve 5406zl

On 18/03/2010, at 9:10 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 17/03/2010 21:28, Lincoln Dale wrote: >> this assertion is also false. i can categorically state that there >> has not been, there have been any number of quirks with "standards >> compliant" MSA transceivers. > > To be fair, Lincoln, Marian i

Re: [c-nsp] Customers requesting Layer 2 across our network

The best way is likely either some eompls solution or l2tpv3. Customers may have a higher than ip sla requirement in mind as it will appear to them as a p2p Ethernet/private line solution. Jared Mauch On Mar 17, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Rick Kunkel wrote: Hello all. I'm with a company offering c

[c-nsp] Customers requesting Layer 2 across our network

Hello all. I'm with a company offering colocation services in the seattle area. Typically, we provide our bandwidth to customers, but I've had a rash of customers lately asking for connections directly to certain providers in the Westin. We are connected to the Westin via our IP network, but

Re: [c-nsp] Multicast Core

What about the new 3750X and 3560X models? Jim -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Alexander Clouter Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 5:46 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Multicast Core Ton

Re: [c-nsp] Cheap 10G between 7600 and Procurve 5406zl

On 17/03/2010 21:28, Lincoln Dale wrote: this assertion is also false. i can categorically state that there has not been, there have been any number of quirks with "standards compliant" MSA transceivers. To be fair, Lincoln, Marian is talking about a different level of incompatibility going o

[c-nsp] DSCP QoS through a QinQ Tunnel

All, We have a client who is using DSCP to tag VOIP traffic through a QinQ tunnel we built for them on our network. The client is reporting their traffic is being tagged when leaving their LAN on one side of the tunnel, but when arriving on the other side the tag has been stripped. Is there a

[c-nsp] DSCP QoS through QinQ tunnel

All, We have a client who is using DSCP to tag VOIP traffic through a QinQ tunnel we built for them on our network. The client is reporting their traffic is being tagged when leaving their LAN on one side of the tunnel, but when arriving on the other side the tag has been stripped. Is there a

Re: [c-nsp] top of rack switch recommendations

Hi, > www.cisco.com/go/fn > 12.2.50.SE available for 3550 even. beware of that one - i'm sure its only for a particular version of the 3550 (!) alan ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6: Getting started

Hi, > Q: We use currently use FWSM 3.1 and ASA 7.2 on our firewalls. We're > planning to upgrade to some later release for many other reasons. > Looking at configuration notes for both: > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/fwsm/fwsm41/configuration/guide/ipv6_f.html > http://www.cisco.com

Re: [c-nsp] Cheap 10G between 7600 and Procurve 5406zl

On 17/03/2010, at 9:16 PM, Phil Mayers wrote: >> certainly if you are most focussed on long-distance optics or DWDM >> then indeed SFP+ is probably not for you. > > True, but... > > Hearing statements which add up to "this whole transceiver platform depends > on the transceiver, linecard hardwar

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6: Getting started

Hi, On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 09:58:09PM +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote: > Now that the whole world knows we (my employer) don't do IPv6, there's > no hiding anymore. :-) Heh :-) [..] > Q: We use currently use FWSM 3.1 and ASA 7.2 on our firewalls. We're No FWSM/ASA here. I know that you can do IPv6

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6: Getting started

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 08:58:09PM +, Peter Rathlev wrote: Q: IPv6 auto-configuration on p-t-p core links: Good or bad idea? I guess the downside is comparable to using RFC1918 addresses on Internet core router's interfaces, where e.g. traces break. Every ipv6 link has a link-local configu

Re: [c-nsp] Cheap 10G between 7600 and Procurve 5406zl

On 17/03/2010, at 7:05 PM, Marian Ďurkovič wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 09:54:13AM +1100, Lincoln Dale wrote: >> from a switch design standpoint if you are designing a switch that could >> be used in many places in the network then reality is one probably needs >> to support multiple transcei

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6: Getting started

> Q: IPv6 auto-configuration on p-t-p core links: Good or bad idea? I > guess the downside is comparable to using RFC1918 addresses on Internet > core router's interfaces, where e.g. traces break. Why on earth would you want to use anything other than static IPv6 addresses for your p-t-p core link

Re: [c-nsp] top of rack switch recommendations

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 08:15:36PM +, Alex Krohn wrote: Hi, On On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:38:58, Cyrill Malevanov wrote: IPv6 features have been moved as part of the 'IPv6 reformation', where an IPv6 feature exists where the same feature exists for IPv4 (e.g. IPv6 static routes are in IP Base,

Re: [c-nsp] top of rack switch recommendations

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:03:32 -0700, you wrote: > That's great news to me, but 12.2(50)SE is only available on the > 3560-E's, not the 3560's as far as I'm aware. Sure it is (and so is 12.2(53)SE): Release notes: www.cisco.com/go/catalyst3560 => All support information for Cisco Catalyst 3560 Ser

[c-nsp] IPv6: Getting started

Now that the whole world knows we (my employer) don't do IPv6, there's no hiding anymore. :-) I tried brainstorming with a couple of my colleagues, and we came up with a few questions. I could imagine other (enterprise) users could benefit from the answers as well. I anyone can share some good adv

Re: [c-nsp] 6500s SXI and EoMPLS

Phil, Seems like this is also possible on Cisco platforms - I was just not aware of that. Specifically for 6500 and SXH it is mentioned here: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps8802/ps6970/ps6017 /prod_bulletin0900aecd806afd81.html Arie -Original Message- From: Phil Be

Re: [c-nsp] top of rack switch recommendations

Hi, On On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:38:58, Cyrill Malevanov wrote: >> IPv6 features have been moved as part of the 'IPv6 reformation', where >> an IPv6 feature exists where the same feature exists for IPv4 (e.g. >> IPv6 static routes are in IP Base, just like IPv4 and OSPFv3 is in IP >> Services, just

Re: [c-nsp] top of rack switch recommendations

www.cisco.com/go/fn 12.2.50.SE available for 3550 even. On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:03 PM, Stephen Cobb wrote: > That's great news to me, but 12.2(50)SE is only available on the 3560-E's, > not the 3560's as far as I'm aware. > -sc > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists > wrote

Re: [c-nsp] top of rack switch recommendations

I would take 3560/3560E depending on traffic load, as access switches (3560E with 10GE uplink) and 4900M as an aggregation device (l2 aggregation of 10GE links). Not 6500ME - it's oversubscribed very heavily, 1:3 on access ports. 4948 is too expensive and it's an SP aggregation switch, not the a

Re: [c-nsp] top of rack switch recommendations

That's great news to me, but 12.2(50)SE is only available on the 3560-E's, not the 3560's as far as I'm aware. -sc On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote: > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:38:58 -0700, you wrote: > > > Hey Alex - It looks like you'd want the enhanced IOS if deali

Re: [c-nsp] top of rack switch recommendations

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:38:58 -0700, you wrote: > Hey Alex - It looks like you'd want the enhanced IOS if dealing at all with > IPv6...I just compared the two on Cisco's "accurate" software advisor and > IPv6 features only appear in IP Services: That is wrong. IPv6 features have been moved as par

Re: [c-nsp] top of rack switch recommendations

Hey Alex - It looks like you'd want the enhanced IOS if dealing at all with IPv6...I just compared the two on Cisco's "accurate" software advisor and IPv6 features only appear in IP Services: IPv6 (Internet Protocol Version 6) IPv6 Data Link: VLANs using Cisco Inter-Switch Link (ISL) IPv6 Data Lin

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 6509 SUP2-MSFC2 and PCMCIA Flash

Sorry guys - it's 7.x not 8.x ROMMON: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/hardware/Config_Notes/78_13488.html#wp146316 I've seen 3rd party ATA disks cause these sorts of is

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 6509 SUP2-MSFC2 and PCMCIA Flash

You may check Cisco's site, I remember having this issue, and I had to upgrade IOS, Catos, or rommon. I cant remember what exactly had to be upgraded, because it was a few years ago. Leah -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net]

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 6509 SUP2-MSFC2 and PCMCIA Flash

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Larry Stites wrote: Is it possible that 128mb is too large amount of flash memory for the S2-MSFC2 to recognize? Does the Supervisor module only accommodate 64Mb max? We're having trouble with (MEM-C6K-ATA-1-128M) PCMCIA 128MB memory cards for the S2-MSFC2. No matter which

Re: [c-nsp] VAM2+ Performance

s, version of virus signature database 4952 (20100317) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6

Hi, > Peter: your mail server needs IPv6... puck has (again), since about half > a year or so, but your mail server delivered over IPv4... > > Received: from mail1.rm.dk (mail1.aaa.dk [193.162.116.36]) > by puck.nether.net (8.14.4/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o2GM1tCq084058 > > "one small ste

[c-nsp] Cisco 6509 SUP2-MSFC2 and PCMCIA Flash

Is it possible that 128mb is too large amount of flash memory for the S2-MSFC2 to recognize? Does the Supervisor module only accommodate 64Mb max? We're having trouble with (MEM-C6K-ATA-1-128M) PCMCIA 128MB memory cards for the S2-MSFC2. No matter which of (4) S2-MSFC2 we put the memory cards in

Re: [c-nsp] top of rack switch recommendations

Hi, > Cisco recommends use of Nexus switches as datacenter switches. > Nexus 5000 as the main switch, 10GE ports, Nexus 2000 as additional switches, > connected to 5K using 10GE/20GE. ..and thankfully you can buy a Nexus switch or 2 now. okay, rewind to BN (before Nexus) - and what would be the

Re: [c-nsp] top of rack switch recommendations

Hi Stephen, On Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:18:37 AM, Stephen Cobb wrote: > Hopefully all you need to know for the Ciscos that support IPv6 hw > forwarding: > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ipv6/configuration/guide/ip6-roadmap.html#wp1060772 > > > 3560-E's forward at 128gbps and 3560/G

Re: [c-nsp] VAM2+ Performance

CIE #18473 (R&S/SP) amsoa...@netcabo.pt ___ 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/ __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4952 (20100

Re: [c-nsp] VAM2+ Performance

On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 18:05 +, Antonio Soares wrote: > Does anyone have access to real world performance values for the VAM2 > + ? I have a router hitting the 50% with 40 Mbps of traffic. It > has a NPE-G1 an it is running 12.4M. I also have ACLs and QOS. > > The VAM2+ data sheet mentions "up

Re: [c-nsp] Multicast Core

> We are currently using 2960Gs with IGMP > querier enabled > I'm thinking a > 4948 or 3750G would work. It sounds like you're using the L2 'ip igmp snooping querier' function in your 2960. I don't think that feature is available in the 4948. IGMP snooping as a function of enabling multicast r

[c-nsp] VAM2+ Performance

Hello group, Does anyone have access to real world performance values for the VAM2+ ? I have a router hitting the 50% with 40 Mbps of traffic. It has a NPE-G1 an it is running 12.4M. I also have ACLs and QOS. The VAM2+ data sheet mentions "up to 280 Mbps": http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collat

Re: [c-nsp] 6500s SXI and EoMPLS

On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote: > True. You cannot map different classes on the same EoMPLS PW to > different TE paths, as EoMPLS is a single point to point L2 link... > You can still have multiple EoMPLS PW's, each using an alternate path > using different TE tunnels,

Re: [c-nsp] inet vrf

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Murphy, William wrote: > The problem for me is that the 6500 seems to do it even if you don't have > MPLS enabled.  The fact that you are running BGP inside VRF causes it to > generate labels.  If I can run IGP inside VRF why then does BGP running > inside VRF aut

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 6509 SUP2-MSFC2 and PCMCIA Flash

hey Larry - you most likely need to upgrade the sup's ROMMON to 8.x. You can find the info on cisco.com. -- Stephen F. Cobb • Senior Sales Engineer, CCNA/CCDA/DCNID/CSE Telecoast Communications, LLC • Santa Barbara, CA o 877.677.1182 x272 • c 760.807.0570 • f 805.618.1610 aim/yahoo telecoaststep

[c-nsp] Cisco 6509 SUP2-MSFC2 and PCMCIA Flash

We're having trouble with (MEM-C6K-ATA-1-128M) PCMCIA 128MB memory cards for the S2-MSFC2. No matter which of (4) S2-MSFC2 we put the memory cards in we get: %Error opening slot0:/ (No device available) which is the same error as if nothing is in that slot. (We tried disk0: as well) Is there s

Re: [c-nsp] disabling Env. monitor reports on c12008

> -Original Message- > From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp- > boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Primoz Jeroncic > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 1:14 AM > To: Cisco Mailing list > Subject: [c-nsp] disabling Env. monitor reports on c12008 > > Hi guys > > I have

[c-nsp] Xconnect

i configured xconnect on interface vlans between ME6524 and Cisco 7606 and didnt go up , between ME3750 and 7606 it goes fine when configuring between ME6524 and Cisco 7606 on interface or sub interface level it goes fine am i missing something ? Thanks

Re: [c-nsp] top of rack switch recommendations

Hopefully all you need to know for the Ciscos that support IPv6 hw forwarding: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ipv6/configuration/guide/ip6-roadmap.html#wp1060772 3560-E's forward at 128gbps and 3560/G's f

Re: [c-nsp] Connecting remote pops with EoMPLS?

Hi, On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 07:05:33PM +1100, Andy Saykao wrote: > Not sure if I'm on the right track but I want to put pc-2 on the same > ethernet segment (ip subnet) as pc-1. How do I accomplish this? Should I > be looking at EoMPLs? [..] > - There is a /30 linking 7606-1 and 7606-2 core routers

Re: [c-nsp] 6500s SXI and EoMPLS

True. You cannot map different classes on the same EoMPLS PW to different TE paths, as EoMPLS is a single point to point L2 link... You can still have multiple EoMPLS PW's, each using an alternate path using different TE tunnels, or use TE FRR... I am not aware of any implementation that can do DS

Re: [c-nsp] 6500s SXI and EoMPLS

>> For TE (and MPLS in general) check: >> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/con >> figuration/guide/pfc3mpls.html >> > > These documents mention no reference to TE for EoMPLS: is it safe to assume > therefore that the 650 doesn't support tE for EoMPLS? No, it's n

Re: [c-nsp] inet vrf

On 17/03/10 15:08, Murphy, William wrote: The problem for me is that the 6500 seems to do it even if you don't have MPLS enabled. The fact that you are running BGP inside VRF causes it to generate labels. If I can run IGP inside VRF why then does BGP running inside VRF automatically assuming we

Re: [c-nsp] inet vrf

The problem for me is that the 6500 seems to do it even if you don't have MPLS enabled. The fact that you are running BGP inside VRF causes it to generate labels. If I can run IGP inside VRF why then does BGP running inside VRF automatically assuming we want to do MPLS or L3VPN? More to the root

Re: [c-nsp] 6500s SXI and EoMPLS

Michael, Try searching for "traffic eng" in http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/con figuration/guide/pfc3mpls.html It is definitely supported with LAN cards. Arie -Original Message- From: Michael Robson [mailto:michael.rob...@manchester.ac.uk] Sent: Wed

Re: [c-nsp] 6500s SXI and EoMPLS

Correct, the WS-X67xx are LAN based cards, and are not "supposed" to be used in SP environment. There are cards especially targeted for that - especially ES40/ES20+ with their EVC stuff. Of course they only work on C7600, and of course they are expensive as hell. For more info see [1] -pavel sko

Re: [c-nsp] 6500s SXI and EoMPLS

On 10 Mar 2010, at 18:56, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote: Michael, For QOS: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/con figuration/guide/mplsqos.html For TE (and MPLS in general) check: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/con figurati

Re: [c-nsp] Cheap 10G between 7600 and Procurve 5406zl

On 17/03/2010 10:16, Phil Mayers wrote: > It would be good if Cisco were to adopt an official, consistent, > cross-platform position on non-Cisco transceivers I'd be happy if they started with an official, consistent, cross-platform position for Cisco transceivers. E.g. platform support for GLC-

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 6509 SUP2-2GE /w PFC2 - which code?

Hi, On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:37:44AM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 17/03/2010 07:27, Gert Doering wrote: > > No, the Sup2 will do netflow just fine. (Since the whole architecture > > of the Sup2 is flow-based, this should actually be fairly easy :-)) > > even layer2 netflow? No. Sorry if

Re: [c-nsp] Cheap 10G between 7600 and Procurve 5406zl

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:16:42AM +, Phil Mayers wrote: > Hearing statements which add up to "this whole transceiver platform > depends on the transceiver, linecard hardware and firmware interacting > correctly" may read to some as "we plan on screwing you with expensive > official cisco tr

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6

Hi, On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:43:59PM +0200, Ziv Leyes wrote: > What I do think the most important thing you mention and I want to make sure > I understood is regarding the "3000::/3, 4000::/3" and so on. > Are you actually telling me that IPv6 was built for scalability? The current global addr

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6

Hi, On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:18:02PM +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote: > On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 11:55 +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > > The gain/cost really depends on what your business is. > > We the "Central Region Denmark", one of the five regional governments in > Denmark. About 90% of our "business

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 6509 SUP2-2GE /w PFC2 - which code?

On 17/03/2010 07:27, Gert Doering wrote: > No, the Sup2 will do netflow just fine. (Since the whole architecture > of the Sup2 is flow-based, this should actually be fairly easy :-)) even layer2 netflow? >> Incidentally, the pfc3b still does not support netflow data export for >> bridged ipv6 da

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6

On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 11:55 +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > The gain/cost really depends on what your business is. We the "Central Region Denmark", one of the five regional governments in Denmark. About 90% of our "business" is health services. We only service internal customers. This translates to h

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6

Jared Mauch writes: > Depending on which trend line you follow, you will want to have a plan > ready as part of your 2011 budget if you're not already there. Well it's not only budget. If you start "playing" with IPv6 now you have enough time learn about IPv6, plan the integration of IPv6, etc.

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6

Hi, On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:15:54AM +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote: > Right now our problem is to make the upper layers in our organisation > understand why IPv6 is a good idea. The rise in cost (primarily OpEx), > though being relatively small, is hard to justify to non-technical > management peop

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6

TJ, thanks for enlightening my thoughts a bit For all the arguments, we can keep arguing for the next 20 years and may or may not come to an agreement. What I do think the most important thing you mention and I want to make sure I understood is regarding the "3000::/3, 4000::/3" and so on. Are yo

Re: [c-nsp] Cheap 10G between 7600 and Procurve 5406zl

On 17/03/10 10:35, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: It would be good if Cisco were to adopt an official, consistent, cross-platform position on non-Cisco transceivers, and one which was favourable towards said transceivers provided they are in-spec for that transceiver platform. I doubt you'll get anyt

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6

On Mar 17, 2010, at 6:15 AM, Peter Rathlev wrote: > But in the end there's only us (i.e. me, my colleagues and my employer) > to blame for our lack of using IPv6. I'm not proud of that. :-) Depending on which trend line you follow, you will want to have a plan ready as part of your 2011 budget

Re: [c-nsp] Connecting remote pops with EoMPLS?

On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 19:05 +1100, Andy Saykao wrote: > pc-1 -> switch-1 ->7606-1 <---> 7606-2 <-- switch-2 <-- pc-2 [...] > Is it a matter of creating a SVI with the xconnect config on the > 7606's - but how do I then get the switches to particpate in EoMPLS so > that the devices connected to the

Re: [c-nsp] Cheap 10G between 7600 and Procurve 5406zl

> It would be good if Cisco were to adopt an official, consistent, > cross-platform position on non-Cisco transceivers, and one which was > favourable towards said transceivers provided they are in-spec for that > transceiver platform. I doubt you'll get anything other than "not supported", sin

Re: [c-nsp] Cheap 10G between 7600 and Procurve 5406zl

On 16/03/10 22:54, Lincoln Dale wrote: On 17/03/2010, at 12:54 AM, Marian Ďurkovič wrote: [..] Thus, the massive rush towards SFP+ might at the end of the day turn out to be a serious flaw, [..] you list downsides without giving fair balance to the upsides. like many things engineering, its o

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6

On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 08:31 +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > Peter: your mail server needs IPv6... puck has (again), since about > half a year or so, but your mail server delivered over IPv4... > > Received: from mail1.rm.dk (mail1.aaa.dk [193.162.116.36]) > by puck.nether.net (8.14.4/8.12.9)

Re: [c-nsp] Connecting remote pops with EoMPLS?

On 17/03/10 08:05, Andy Saykao wrote: Hi All, Not sure if I'm on the right track but I want to put pc-2 on the same ethernet segment (ip subnet) as pc-1. How do I accomplish this? Should I be looking at EoMPLs? Network Topology: pc-1 -> switch-1 ->7606-1<---> 7606-2<-- switch-2<-- pc-2 - Al

Re: [c-nsp] inet vrf

On 17/03/10 00:09, Tim Durack wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Manu Chao wrote: This feature is a nice label allocation optimisation, are you using this command on RTR-2? Yes, both routers of a pair. Seems to me like it should really be the default behavior. Why? Obviously it's a la

[c-nsp] Connecting remote pops with EoMPLS?

Hi All, Not sure if I'm on the right track but I want to put pc-2 on the same ethernet segment (ip subnet) as pc-1. How do I accomplish this? Should I be looking at EoMPLs? Network Topology: pc-1 -> switch-1 ->7606-1 <---> 7606-2 <-- switch-2 <-- pc-2 - All the "1' devices are geographically se

Re: [c-nsp] OSPF Routing

You need to make sure that ospf is configured to advertise these networks. You can do this either with a network statement or via redistribution, in your ospf process. On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Anthony Gown - Comm-AG Networks P/L < com...@internode.on.net> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I have a OSP

[c-nsp] disabling Env. monitor reports on c12008

Hi guys I have c12008 with 2 power supplies, from which one is turned off and is in the box only as backup which could be switched on manually if something would go wrong with primary one. Now I'm getting whole bunch of errors in log that volts level with this power supply has reached critical le

Re: [c-nsp] Cheap 10G between 7600 and Procurve 5406zl

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 09:54:13AM +1100, Lincoln Dale wrote: > from a switch design standpoint if you are designing a switch that could > be used in many places in the network then reality is one probably needs > to support multiple transceiver types if you want to address all > requirements. no

Re: [c-nsp] OSPF Routing

Do a "sh ip ospf database" ! Regards, V.Vasilev Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange -Original Message- From: "Anthony Gown - Comm-AG Networks P/L" Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:57:34 To: Subject: [c-nsp] OSPF Routing Hi, I have a OSPF neighbour relationship established between 4503-Sup

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6

Hi, On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:01:29PM +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote: > All in all I would personally prefer that we do _something_ and start > seriously deploying/using IPv6, and then in parallel continue discussing > address allocation policy et cetera. :-D Yes, I fully agree with that (and I've b

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 6509 SUP2-2GE /w PFC2 - which code?

Hi, On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 08:13:35PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 16/03/2010 18:55, Gert Doering wrote: > > Anyway: Netflow on Sup2 works OK (as far as I know, at least "works for > > me") but it won't show you layer2-switched flows. "Bridged Netflow" > > is something more recent, and I'm n