Re: [c-nsp] ouch 7204vxr reloaded

Antonio Querubin wrote: So my inexperienced glancing would say it was something to do with OSPF. How do you know you don't have some RAM going BAD? I don't, and thats the point of my message - to get on the track to know and further to get enabled to resolve the problem, whatever it may

Re: [c-nsp] ouch 7204vxr reloaded

Mike, > -Original Message- > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:40 PM > To: Mike > Cc: 'Cisco-nsp' > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ouch 7204vxr reloaded > > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Mike wrote: > > > unexpectedly and I find myself without a good explanation. Show version > gives > > me 'processor memory

Re: [c-nsp] ouch 7204vxr reloaded

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Mike wrote: unexpectedly and I find myself without a good explanation. Show version gives me 'processor memory pairity error': System returned to ROM by processor memory parity error at PC 0x60640F70, So my inexperienced glancing would say it was something to do with

[c-nsp] ouch 7204vxr reloaded

Howdy, Well that was fun, I discovered that my trusty 7204vxr reloaded unexpectedly and I find myself without a good explanation. Show version gives me 'processor memory pairity error': System returned to ROM by processor memory parity error at PC 0x60640F70, address 0x0 at 03:09:00 PST T

Re: [c-nsp] VPN over Comcast

Hello Michael-- No laughs here. When a customer of mine lost its 100 foot tower that was at the core of its wireless network (as in it fell down), they had to scramble to bring up remote buildings on their network. We dropped Comcast Business cable lines and ASA-5505s at each location that was

Re: [c-nsp] VPN over Comcast

we are extending l2 pseudowire over ipsec tunnels through comcast business class internet and this seems to work mostly stable for us; I'm not sure if the sla for residential cable would incur more outage or not; albeit we are in the minneapolis mkt and not chicago. -- Regards, Ge Moua Network

Re: [c-nsp] 6500/Sup720 and SVI xconnect?

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:19:11 +0200, you wrote: > I did actually mean xconnect configuration on a SVI. :-) A 7600 chassis and ES+ cards will do that today. It's probably less expensive than the SIP solution. Plus, SR is IMO better software than SX. YMMV. -A __

Re: [c-nsp] IP route analysis solution

About a year ago we demoed netbrain for that sort of thing http://www.netbraintech.com/ -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ibrahim Abo Zaid Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:47 PM To: cisco_nsp Subject: [c-nsp]

Re: [c-nsp] 6500 latency

Jeff, This is an old document. But it gives the numbers. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps708/prod_white_ paper0900aecd800c9589.pdf David -- http://dcp.dcptech.com > -Original Message- > From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp- > boun...@pu

[c-nsp] VPN over Comcast

I will probably be laughed at, but I'll ask just in case. We are having particularly bad luck trying to run VPN tunnels over Comcast cable in the Chicago area. The symptoms are basically complete loss of connectivity (lasting minutes to sometimes hours), or sometimes flapping for a period of time

Re: [c-nsp] Using EoMPLS where you'd normally use a VLAN

Yes, SIPs would allow you to do this. Arie -Original Message- From: Jason Lixfeld [mailto:ja...@lixfeld.ca] Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 19:58 To: Arie Vayner (avayner) Cc: Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Using EoMPLS where you'd normally use a VLAN What about a 6500+Sup720+SIP? On 2010-04-27, a

Re: [c-nsp] 6500/Sup720 and SVI xconnect?

On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 18:31 +0200, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote: > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:58:27 +0200, you wrote: > > > Also, on a 7600 (SR software), you can run Mux UNI (a trunk with > > > VLANs and sub-interfaces on the same interface), even on LAN > > > cards. I don't remember off the top of m

Re: [c-nsp] 6500 latency

The lowest conceivable latency for a 1500 byte packet on 1GE is 12usec in a store and forward mode. This does not include inter-frame gap or other overhead (ie. Switching). This is simple physics. You need to go to 10GE for really lowering latency. LR Mack McBride Network Architect Viawest, Inc.

Re: [c-nsp] Using EoMPLS where you'd normally use a VLAN

What about a 6500+Sup720+SIP? On 2010-04-27, at 2:00 AM, "Arie Vayner (avayner)" wrote: > Jason, > > You can do this with some of the devices. For example 7600 with ES+ (or > ES20/SIP) modules can terminate a pseudowire (either point to point or > VPLS...) on a SVI and also have layer 3 configu

Re: [c-nsp] 6500/Sup720 and SVI xconnect?

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:58:27 +0200, you wrote: >> Also, on a 7600 (SR software), you can run Mux UNI (a trunk with VLANs >> and sub-interfaces on the same interface), even on LAN cards. I don't >> remember off the top of my head if that's supported on the 6500. > It is, but won't help. You still

Re: [c-nsp] Buffer capacity on access layer catalysts...

I'd LOVE to see this documented in one place, as well. I did find this on the 2950's: "8 MB memory architecture shared by all ports" http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps628/product_data_sheet09186a00801cfb64.html Nothing elsewhere... -- Stephen F. Cobb • Senior Sales En

Re: [c-nsp] traffic shape on 87x/88x/18xx SVI interfaces

This kind of interfaces (FastEthernet) are actually Layer 2 switch ports like you would usually find on LAN switches. Shaping on SVI interfaces is usually not supported on this kind of platforms (Layer 2 switches), so this is consistent. You can still use shaping on "real" interfaces on the 800/18

[c-nsp] Buffer capacity on access layer catalysts...

Does anyone have a pointer to buffer specifications for the access layer Catalyst models (2950/2960/3550/3560)? Interested in per-port buffer specs (if applicable) or shared buffer sizes by model. The word "buffer" interestingly enough does not appear anywhere in the 2960 data sheets :-) I've he

Re: [c-nsp] traffic shape on 87x/88x/18xx SVI interfaces

Take a look at: Switch Virtual Interface for Cisco Integrated Services Routers == http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5853/prod_white_paper0900aecd8064c9f4.html Shimol On 4/27/10 11:19 AM, Chris Flav wrote: Hi,

Re: [c-nsp] traffic shape on 87x/88x/18xx SVI interfaces

>Hi, > >it's not working, have to use traffic policing instead of traffic >shaping on SVI. No way around that. How incredibly lame. Hardware limitation? C. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listin

Re: [c-nsp] traffic shape on 87x/88x/18xx SVI interfaces

Hi, it's not working, have to use traffic policing instead of traffic shaping on SVI. No way around that. Best regards, Jan On 04/27/2010 04:06 PM, Chris Flav wrote: > > Hello, > > We are trying to do a simple "traffic-shape rate" command on a variety of > router platforms (871,881,1811) and

Re: [c-nsp] traffic shape on 87x/88x/18xx SVI interfaces

- Original Message From: Shimol Shah To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 10:24:50 AM Subject: Re: [c-nsp] traffic shape on 87x/88x/18xx SVI interfaces GTS is the old way of doing Qos. It is not supported in the CEF path. MQC is the new and recommended way. With G

Re: [c-nsp] traffic shape on 87x/88x/18xx SVI interfaces

GTS is the old way of doing Qos. It is not supported in the CEF path. MQC is the new and recommended way. With GTS if you do "sh cef int <>" you will see something like below DUT#sh run int g3/2 Building configuration... Current configuration : 168 bytes ! interface GigabitEthernet3/2 ip addr

Re: [c-nsp] SNMPv3 bug on 3550

I can't find my notes on it, but I seem to remember it being a bug. I believe a later code fixed our issue. Chuck Church Network Planning Engineer, CCIE #8776 Southcom Harris IT Services 1210 N. Parker Rd. Greenville, SC 29609 Office: 864-335-9473 Cell: 864-266-3978 E-mail:

[c-nsp] traffic shape on 87x/88x/18xx SVI interfaces

Hello, We are trying to do a simple "traffic-shape rate" command on a variety of router platforms (871,881,1811) and have determined that the traffic-shape does not actually take effect unless "no ip route-cache cef" is applied to the Fe4 interface (or Fe0 or Fe1 on the 1811). Traffic shape c

Re: [c-nsp] WiMAX Download

I'd say long fat pipe issues. -- http://dcp.dcptech.com > -Original Message- > From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp- > boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mohammad Khalil > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:31 AM > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: [c-nsp] WiM

Re: [c-nsp] WiMAX Download

Yes, it's reasonable due to the high latency of 802.16e and to some packet losses that are intrinsic to wireless access. Bandwidth is something related to latency in an inverse linear proportion, and to that latency you have the add all the way till the server where the user is getting content from

[c-nsp] WiMAX Download

Dears many of the customers who uses our WiMAX service claims that they cannot get their full speed using one session , when they open more than 1 session they can almost get all the speed , is that reasonable ? is it related to network infrastructure or WiMAX infrastructure (ASN GW and CPEs)

[c-nsp] 6500 latency

OK, I know that a 6500 is not a super low latency box. I've seen around 17usec, card to card to another switch CFC mode, but due to time constraints have done little formal analysis. I'm guessing its better in DFC mode, and on 6700 cards, and if your traffic is local to a card or to a fabric

Re: [c-nsp] ras configuration

Could you be more specific? What kind of connections, protocols, etc would you like the RAS to use? What equipment do you own or plan to buy? I can send you a sample config, but I need some more details... Ziv -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp

Re: [c-nsp] 6500/Sup720 and SVI xconnect?

Thanks for the answers so far. We'll check with our AM to see if they have any further details. :-) On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 09:04 +0200, Peter Rathlev wrote: > If one were to want xconnected SVIs and "real" VPLS on a 6500/Sup720, > what would one need? We need 10G, and using SIP-600 as core facing >

Re: [c-nsp] SNMPv3 bug on 3550

Hi All Iam facing the same below issue on 7200 with 12.2(25)S image does anyone face the same problem ? is it a bug ? thanks --Ibrahim On Thu, Feb 7, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Peter Rathlev wrote: > Sorry about the "empty" mail before, was busy wiping up coffee from my > keyboard. :-) > > I've teste

Re: [c-nsp] 10G Ethernet Module

Hi, On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 09:58:38PM -0400, Tim Durack wrote: > I suspect that 6500 + 20th Century OS = Nexus. Cisco are just being > really careful how they break that news to their customers. This is what I'm suspecting as well. Nexus or IOS-XE. (Now the interesting thing is: will the exist

Re: [c-nsp] 10G Ethernet Module

Hi, On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:48:40PM -0500, Tony Varriale wrote: > From: "Gert Doering" > > >(Regarding your question, I can't say. We decided to go for 6500 > >chassis and SX* IOS - to eventually get software modularity... > > And how's that working out for you? Well. - positive points:

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS over VLAN

On 27 Apr 2010, at 06:50, Samit wrote: > But my understanding is it should not...because the c-tag and s-tag or > whatsoever like b-vid.it..would be considered as a payload when it > enters the MPLS network.Appreciate if someone comment or confirm this.. Seems to me like the confusion here

Re: [c-nsp] 6500/Sup720 and SVI xconnect?

W dniu 2010-04-27 10:37, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists pisze: > Also, on a 7600 (SR software), you can run Mux UNI (a trunk with VLANs > and sub-interfaces on the same interface), even on LAN cards. I don't > remember off the top of my head if that's supported on the 6500. Supported since 12.2(33)SXH h

Re: [c-nsp] 6500/Sup720 and SVI xconnect?

Hi, On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:37:34AM +0200, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote: > Also, on a 7600 (SR software), you can run Mux UNI (a trunk with VLANs > and sub-interfaces on the same interface), even on LAN cards. I don't > remember off the top of my head if that's supported on the 6500. It is, b

Re: [c-nsp] 6500/Sup720 and SVI xconnect?

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:04:35 +0200, you wrote: > If one were to want xconnected SVIs and "real" VPLS on a 6500/Sup720, > what would one need? We need 10G, and using SIP-600 as core facing > interfaces seems to be the only solution, albeit rather expensive. Check with your account team if the ES+

Re: [c-nsp] 10G Ethernet Module

26.04.2010 17:56, William Jobs пишет: Hi, I'm in need of a 10G Ethernet module to run in a 7606 chassis. According to the following page: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/hardware/Module_Installation/Mod_Install_Guide/02ethern.html the module I'm interested in, the WS-

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS over VLAN

Hi, On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 05:32:05PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote: > Can someone explain this a bit better for me? ;) Sorry if this is "MPLS > 101"... > > We are getting ready to deploy some equipment (mixture of Cisco/Juniper) > that is MPLS capable. We'd like to transport some VPLS traffic ho

[c-nsp] 6500/Sup720 and SVI xconnect?

Hi, For some time we have used loop cables and port mode EoMPLS in order to both to L2 transport over MPLS and L3 termination of the same VLAN. This might sometimes result in supoptimal switching, since there's no (easy) way to make the switches understand the way the L2 and L3 topology work toget

Re: [c-nsp] IP route analysis solution

...and ALU has a very powerful (multivendor) solution as well: http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd4w3dnTRL8h2VAQADYR9IA!!?LMSG_CABINET=Solution_Product_Catalog&LMSG_CONTENT_FILE=Products/Product_Detail_000520.xml&LMSG_PARENT=Product_Families/Produ