Re: [c-nsp] mpls route target export question

David, > >> In newer releases (where the import code was rewritten), the command is > >> "import path limit " > > Would be interested to know what visible differences there are in the > behaviour of this (existing vs rewrite) take a look at "BGP Event-Based VPN Import" feature doc (http://www.c

Re: [c-nsp] pix vs asa

> -Original Message- > From: Deric Kwok [mailto:deric.kwok2...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:44 PM > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] pix vs asa > > Hi > > Thank you so much for reply. > AS A works fine but I have problem about vpn. I am using ciscoasdm to > configure it. > > I ge

Re: [c-nsp] pix vs asa

Hi Thank you so much for reply. AS A works fine but I have problem about vpn. I am using ciscoasdm to configure it. I get ipaddress in ippool after connection. But I can not ping out eg: gw and any servers in the same pool network Any example about vpn config too to let me check Thank you agai

Re: [c-nsp] quick VTP question.

Yes. That sounds like loads of fun. We always use passwords on our switches, but it is always good to check. Thanks. -Troy On Aug 5, 2010, at 3:05 AM, Garry wrote: On 05.08.2010 02:09, Troy Beisigl wrote: After reading up on VTP server configurations at Cisco, I wanted to get someone's r

Re: [c-nsp] pix vs asa

If your pix runs 7.0 or higher, the commands are virtuall identical for the same corresponding code of ASA. In fact for a long time, the binaries were the same. If it's 6.3 on the pix, there's some changee. If this is for a migration, your best using the configuration migration tool found on CCO

Re: [c-nsp] pix vs asa

Deric, > -Original Message- > From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp- > boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Deric Kwok > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 8:46 PM > Subject: [c-nsp] pix vs asa > > Hi all > > Just wandering whether any different to configure vpn in pix

[c-nsp] pix vs asa

Hi all Just wandering whether any different to configure vpn in pix and asa Any example Thank you ___ 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

Re: [c-nsp] mpls route target export question

> Very cool discussion - thanks for sharing info Indeed, thanks to all who have replied >> >> In newer releases (where the import code was rewritten), the command is >> "import path limit " Would be interested to know what visible differences there are in the behaviour of this (existing vs rew

Re: [c-nsp] mpls route target export question

> ack, the "import " option is very important. You don't actually need > the "ibgp unequal-cost" with it, unless you want to do unequal-cost ibgp > load-sharing. > > In newer releases (where the import code was rewritten), the command is > "import path limit " > >oli > > Very cool discussio

Re: [c-nsp] Cleanest way to remove a redundant SUP720-3BXL

On 08/05/2010 07:52 PM, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr wrote: Hello Peter, Have you read this : http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps708/products_configuration_example09186a008086ed2e.shtml I have been through this situation several times and OIR really works... but hey, you never what c

Re: [c-nsp] routing between VRF and global

So, here's the deal. It works. With caveats. 1) the Cisco 6500 loopback has a fixed mtu of 1514. This isn't enough to accommodate a GRE-encapsulated packet. So you have to take the path-MTU hit. 2) per the release notes, GRE tunnels are hardware-accelerated - except for packets which require e

Re: [c-nsp] Cleanest way to remove a redundant SUP720-3BXL

Hello Peter, Have you read this : http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps708/products_configuration_example09186a008086ed2e.shtml I have been through this situation several times and OIR really works... but hey, you never what can happen out there ;-) Maybe you should cut-off power f

Re: [c-nsp] mpls route target export question

> > Taking this even further, you may also want to investigate the command > "maximum-paths ibgp unequal-cost" which can be used to protect against > route-reflector failure. For example, you could use "maximum-paths ibgp > unequal-cost 2 import 4" to ensure your VRF's will import 4 BGP routes.

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 7204 VXR Telnet login timeout bug?

Hi, >I'm running into an issue where I have a 7204 that is timing out the vty >login page on the client side but not closing the line on router side. >Has anybody run into this issue before? Any ideas where I can start >looking? I've checked the Cisco site. while ago we had the same on a 7304

[c-nsp] Cleanest way to remove a redundant SUP720-3BXL

I need to remove a STANDBY HOT redundant SUP720-3BXL from a 6506-E chassis tonight and want to minimize any possibility of a reload or traffic interruption. Other than just yanking the card from the chassis and relying on OIR, is there any suggested steps to take to make this cleaner? I want to

Re: [c-nsp] routing between VRF and global

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Kenny Sallee wrote: > This is a pretty cool config, but I'm having a hard time seeing why you'd > want to do this?  Why not just route-target import/export between VRF's you > want to share routes with?  And use import-maps to filter as necessary? > > I did the sam

Re: [c-nsp] routing between VRF and global

multicast, perhaps? or there are cases where you just need an interface to apply something to, such as an ACL, PBR... (sorry for not indenting and replying inline, the message came in html and outlook is pretty dumb in switching back to plaintext) -- deejay From: Kenny Sallee [mailto:kenny

Re: [c-nsp] mpls route target export question

Using multiple RD's is important for convergence when you are using route-reflectors as a route-reflector will only advertise the "best" BGP route to it's clients. If you use the same RD for a VPN across two (Or more) PE's then the route-reflector will see that route as the same and only pick th

Re: [c-nsp] mpls route target export question

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Nick Chettle wrote: > Using multiple RD's is important for convergence when you are using > route-reflectors as a route-reflector will only advertise the "best" > BGP route to it's clients. If you use the same RD for a VPN across > two (Or more) PE's t

Re: [c-nsp] mpls route target export question

David, > would be interested on some expansion of oli's comments on convergence, > and why differing RDs for the same prefix would be a good thing (I'm > imagining perhaps if you want to do multipath then they are considered > multiple paths as opposed to simply just selecting one because RD is th

Re: [c-nsp] routing between VRF and global

> > The tunnel source and destination are between different loopbacks > > within the global table, but one end of the tunnel is within the > > global and one end within the VRF table. You might be able to NAT > > across the GRE tunnel. > This is a pretty cool config, but I'm having a hard time see

Re: [c-nsp] mpls route target export question

We generally do one RD, RT per VRF, same RD across multiple PEs the VRF is configured (extended import/export policies aside) We also attach standard communities to VRF prefixes (yes, astonishing thing to do) since our standard community scheme does all the stuff like identifying the originating r

[c-nsp] RES: C3750G-24TS-E: Routing issue between procted switchports

AFAIK this is not possible. If the test servers are on the same subnet only L2 switching is possible, not L3 routing. And upon the configuration of the protected switchport the traffic will be disrupted. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether

Re: [c-nsp] C3750G-24TS-E: Routing issue between procted switchports

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Daniel Bradler wrote: There are two test servers connected to port 1/0/13 and 1/0/14. These servers have IP adresses from 80.83.122.0/24 and 80.83.123.0/23 with 255.255.255.255 as subnet mask and use 80.83.127.1 as default gateway. Sorry, there was not netmask not configure

[c-nsp] C3750G-24TS-E: Routing issue between procted switchports

Hi, I have a routing issue on a C3750G-24TS-E (SW version 12.2(53)SE2) with the switchport procted feature enabled. In short, my configuration looks as follows: interface GigabitEthernet1/0/13 switchport access vlan 910 switchport mode access switchport protected ! interface GigabitEthernet1

Re: [c-nsp] quick VTP question.

On 05.08.2010 02:09, Troy Beisigl wrote: > After reading up on VTP server configurations at Cisco, I wanted to > get someone's real life experience sign off on this. Whatever you do, make sure you set up VTP passwords ... we had an instance where a switch was not configured for VTP password ... w

Re: [c-nsp] quick VTP question.

Actually changing domain name will reset config revision, so the step with transparent isn't necessary. On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Holger wrote: > On 04.08.10 17:09, Troy Beisigl wrote: >> After reading up on VTP server configurations at Cisco, I wanted to >> get someone's real life experien

Re: [c-nsp] quick VTP question.

On 04.08.10 17:09, Troy Beisigl wrote: > After reading up on VTP server configurations at Cisco, I wanted to > get someone's real life experience sign off on this. > > Cisco docs state that you can have more than one VTP server in a VTP > domain and that updates on one will update the other and vi

Re: [c-nsp] mpls route target export question

On 08/05/2010 07:48 AM, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote: I strongly advise using a unique RD per VRF per PE. This gives you load-sharing and improves routing convergence when the same VRF prefix is exported by multiple PEs (i.e. for multi-homed CEs), even when you use route reflectors. Unique RD

Re: [c-nsp] mpls route target export question

Hi, On 5 August 2010 15:48, Kenny Sallee wrote: {cut} > > I believe the route-target exported needs to be unique across the entire > routing domain (else you could have one customer import other customers > routes).  RD can be different per PE router - but I'm not sure why anyone > would want to

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco IOS Release 15.0S for the Cisco 7600 and Cisco 10000 series routers

You're right, but OTOH, if it's working perfectly there is no reason to upgrade to 15.0. -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of LM Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 9:05 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: