On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 08:01:30PM +0200, Andrew Miehs wrote:
On 03.09.2010, at 18:03, Larry Smith lesm...@ecsis.net wrote:
On Fri September 3 2010 09:44, Marc Haber wrote:
Do I have a possibility to reduce the MTU used by the client and/or to
clamp the MSS to MTU on the IOS device (or by
On 04.09.2010, at 08:25, Marc Haber mh+cisco-...@zugschlus.de
or clamp mss to something like 1420 to be safe.
Now we're back to my original question, which is quoted above.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2t/12_2t4/feature/guide/ft_admss.html#wp1060739
The above link should
If you are providing the customers a MPLS VPN solution then OSPF can be a
better service offering from them and you. Multi-protocol BGP in a MPLS VPN
solution can propagate critical OSPF information between CE routers. Making
it a seamless enterprise IGP between geographically separated sites for
Short answer is yes.
To be more specific, I don't really know the science behind this, or about
why it works, I only know I have two different circuits between two remote
sites, they're both on etherchannel and the etherchannel is a vlan trunk that
transfers 3 or 4 vlans and the load balance
Hello,
Nick Hilliard wrote:
I meant to mention prefix lists vs access-lists.
prefix-lists are invariably implemented using a trie structure, while
access-list are generally implemented as ordered lists. Trie lookups are
O(log N), while an ordered list must be examined iteratively - which is
On 2010-09-04 20:23, Roman Sokolov wrote:
Not always necessary to look up access-list line by line. Google about
access-list compiled and hashes.
The compiled ACLs were already dropped/phased out, and now by default
IOS uses even better algorithm to process them. For some time the
parser still
On 9/3/10 4:07 PM, Mohammad Khalil eng_m...@hotmail.com wrote:
hi all
we use OSPF to transport customers routers into our backbone , i read in one
of Cisco presentations that its best to use BGP for the same purpose
your opinions please
In my opinion, BGP is best for inter-AS
+1
If the customers are coming to you with their own netblock, then it's likely
they have their own ASN. If they're using a block of your address space then
they announce on a private ASN and you remove-private-as.
Customers using OSPF could accidentally hijack prefixes leaving us little to no
I thought this was only optimized for TCAM operations related to packet
filtering/manipulation.
2010/9/4 Łukasz Bromirski luk...@bromirski.net
On 2010-09-04 20:23, Roman Sokolov wrote:
Not always necessary to look up access-list line by line. Google about
access-list compiled and hashes.
Thanks all for youir help
actually the setup now does not hold any MPLS configuration , they use a subnet
of mine and point to point connection and i use OSPF in the backbone to
advertise to the core routers and then using BGP to advertise all
From: bblackf...@nwresd.k12.or.us
To:
I understand turbo ACLs. I was saying that the enhancements only apply to
packet manipulations not routing protocols. I'm not sure if it is causing
the issues that started this thread, but the only way to optimize route
filters is to use prefix lists to match the routes. For example all the
Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
On 2010-09-05 01:52, Keegan Holley wrote:
I thought this was only optimized for TCAM operations related to packet
filtering/manipulation.
No, Turbo ACLs were actually made for software-forwarding platforms -
primarly 7200, 7500, later 12000 with old engines to speed up
12 matches
Mail list logo
