First and foremost, domain tagging is a mechanism designed for legacy
OSPF implementations that did not support the down bit [1] for type 5
LSAs. It has been established that route tagging is not to be
implemented in OSPFv3[2] because v3 specifies the mechanism of
operation in the down bit.
On 14-8-2010 1:46, Andrew Miehs wrote:
Actually, I think he said that it was learned via OSPF and eBGP, and that these
routers were preferring the eBGP route.
Correct.
What I don't understand is why the OSPF route is not more specific? Or is this
another case of announcing /24s (or even
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:02:55AM +, Felix Nkansah wrote:
I need to connect some voice E1 cables to some equipment that is said to
support only DSS1 signaling.
I want to clarify if DSS1 is the same as ISDN PRI?
DSS1 is the signalling for ISDN in europe (not the physical standard,
On 14/08/2010, at 11:09 AM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
What I don't understand is why the OSPF route is not more specific? Or is
this another case of announcing /24s (or even smaller blocks) via eBGP?
It is just the same /24 route belonging to one internet exchange. Most IX
prefixes are
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
It is just the same /24 route belonging to one internet exchange. Most
IX prefixes are forbidden to be announced, but this one is unfortunately
the exception :/
1. Filter IX prefixes inbound from peers.
2. Change the administrative distance per
On 14-8-2010 1:07, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Well now. Cisco has for many years recommended having the *same*
administrative distance for iBGP and eBGP, as in
distance bgp 200 200 200
Wouldn't this accomplish what you need?
Steinar,
Could you point me to any link with such recommendations?
Well now. Cisco has for many years recommended having the *same*
administrative distance for iBGP and eBGP, as in
distance bgp 200 200 200
Wouldn't this accomplish what you need?
Steinar,
Could you point me to any link with such recommendations? And if they,
as you say, have
Grzegorz,
Usually, you'd want to do hot potato routing and prefer your
eBGP route over the on in your OSPF table. This comes from the
assumption that the entry in your OSPF table actually comes from
outside your organization, your OSPF neighbors are internal, and
the eBGP neighbor is at your
I have had several intermittent reports over time from one of our
distance learning customers concerning network issues during some of
their classes (appears to be just one classroom, with one particular
peer location, but I'm still looking to point the finger).
I'm way over my head with H.323
This could be anything from a non-standard H.323 stack to a bug in ASA code.
Closed by inspection is when the h.323 inspection engine that is responsible
for opening the high ports that are negotiated in the h.323 setup as well as
NATing any addresses inside the h.323 packet closes the
Maybe this link can be useful:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2t/12_2t4/feature/guide/ftnatrt.html
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:59 AM, J Springer j...@jspringer.net wrote:
IOS: c1841-advsecurityk9-mz.124-21.bin
Does this version support static nat route-maps (to exclude nat for
Hi Chris,
'Also, I see the both the 2560G and the 2801 in the CDP
neighbor output.'
Is the port facing 2801 set to vlan 501 or 503?
Not sure about the encapsulation failed error..
On 15 August 2010 00:19, Christopher J. Wargaski war...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello--
I have a 2801 router at a
Hey Heath--
The 2801 port is set to VLAN 501. The 2955 has a VLAN 501 defined
and the radio link to the 2801 is plugged into a VLAN 501 access port.
The 2955 switch has a VLAN 503 interface on it and has a trunked
port back to the 3560G. (The 3560G also has a VLAN 503 interface.)
cjw
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 18:19 -0500, Christopher J. Wargaski wrote:
17w2d: IP: s=172.16.0.6 (local), d=172.16.0.5 (FastEthernet0/0.501),
len 100, encapsulation failed
Encapsulation failed in this context simply means there's no ARP entry
for the destination. The router cannot create the relevant
Hey Peter--
Thanks for explaining the forward failed. By the way, we tried
placing static ARP entries on the 2801 and 3560G but that did not
help. So that makes me think that you are on to something, I have the
wrong VLAN configured on a port or something of that sort. I'll look
at every
It sounds like the VLAN is not active on the 3560G.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Christopher J. Wargaski
war...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Peter--
Thanks for explaining the forward failed. By the way, we tried
placing static ARP entries on the 2801 and 3560G but that did not
help. So that
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:06:25 -0400
From: Christina Klam ck...@ias.edu
Subject: [c-nsp] Nexus1000v: Mgmt Port
I am setting up a pair of Nexus 1000v switches. As per the Cisco
documentation, I have the management port in my system-uplink
port-group.
Be careful with which documentation
17 matches
Mail list logo
