My 7505 seems to crash about once a day, since I've upgraded to
12.4(25). It seems to crash with a %SYS-3-CPUHOG and several
%SYS-2-CHUNKBADREFCOUNT errors. Anyone else have similar problems with
12.4(25)? Could someone recommend a specific older version that's more
stable?
Peace... Sri
I asked a transport guy (I couldn't even pretend to be one) and he said that
the answer depends on the equipment. Each device/card should have an
overload rating and a damage rating. Exceeding the former will cause damage
and/or degradation over time and exceeding the latter will cause more
immed
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 10:46:29 -0500, you wrote:
>> *Maximum* transmit power is 4 dBm and max receive is -1 dBm, so
>> an attenuator is certainly highly recommended for short distances.
> "Minimum cabling distance for -LR, -SR, -LX4, -ER modules is 2m,
> according to the IEEE 802.3ae standard"
And?
I noticed that too Jon, I think its just a display thing - because it's
saying the interface name it also shows the mac..
On 9 September 2010 18:34, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Drew Weaver wrote:
>
> [r...@vmz bin]# tracert x.x.x.13
>> traceroute to x.x.x.13 (x.x.x.13), 30 hops max
Actually, it could also be an ingress filter on their side (no other packets
will be routed across 10g link except the icmp request when doing locally).
On 9 September 2010 18:32, Heath Jones wrote:
> I think the problem is an egress filter on level3 side of 10g. It has to
> be..
>
> When pingin
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Drew Weaver wrote:
[r...@vmz bin]# tracert x.x.x.13
traceroute to x.x.x.13 (x.x.x.13), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 gw (gw) 0.486 ms 0.458 ms 0.463 ms
2 core (core) 0.460 ms 0.710 ms 0.709 ms
3 rtr (rtr) 0.427 ms 0.428 ms 0.425 ms
4 x.x.x.Level3.net (x.x.x.13)
I think the problem is an egress filter on level3 side of 10g. It has to
be..
When pinging from 10g interface local .14<->remote .13, icmp response
packets will certainly come back over 10g as router on level3 side will be
using connected route. *not working*
When pinging from host to remote .13,
One other thing. Do you have an rACL that is blocking ICMP return traffic to
your interface IP?
Mike
--
Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP
Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com
w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050
PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (
If I understand you correctly you are trying to ping from a host on your
network, not the directly connected router? If you haven't turned up
BGP yet the return traffic is going to try to go back through the L3
network to your network because it's not yet receiving the
directly-connected route. Y
Are you specifying the source IP address to be the .14 on your side?
Possibly the router is choosing another interface IP as the source
instead of .14
Ken Matlock
Network Analyst
Exempla Healthcare
(303) 467-4671
matlo...@exempla.org
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nethe
Have they correctly set their end of the link - does the IP address actually
match what you think it should be?
What does ARP say!!? ARP is the most underutilised tool for stuff like this!
--
They claim they have, and arp says this:
rtr#sh ip arp
Protocol Address Age (min) Hardware Add
Hi,
I assume the new connection doesn't have BGP turned up yet?
--
Correct, I am just trying to get it to where I can ping it first (which is what
I usually do, anyway).
Ah...but when you do this, are you sure x.x.x.13 is really the other side
of your 10G connection? This is ethernet, so whe
Have they correctly set their end of the link - does the IP address actually
match what you think it should be?
What does ARP say!!? ARP is the most underutilised tool for stuff like this!
I can see a scenario where downstream hosts could ping that IP, if they are
taking a different path and the I
Hi,
I can ping their side of the 1Gbps connection from the router it's connected to
and they claim that I should be able to ping their end of the 10Gbps connection.
I can also ping the other side of all of my other up streams.
thanks,
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Drew Weaver wrote:
I currently have two connections to Level3 because I am upgrading, one
(the old one) is a 1Gbps connection in Router-1, the second one is a
10Gbps connection in Router-2.
Both connections are up/up, the old connection is getting a full BGP session
from
On Sep 9, 2010, at 11:35 PM, Drew Weaver wrote:
> Is anyone aware of any sort of gotcha when doing something like this?
TTL-based filtering, perhaps?
Though you (nor anyone else) shouldn't be able to ping any of their routers at
all, IMHO.
-
Howdy,
I currently have two connections to Level3 because I am upgrading, one (the old
one) is a 1Gbps connection in Router-1, the second one is a 10Gbps connection
in Router-2.
Both connections are up/up, the old connection is getting a full BGP session
from Level3.
I noticed that no matter
>> He should actually be ok even with ER and no attenuators as minimum
>> transmit power is -4.7 dBm and max receive power is -1 dBm (per cisco
>> site). Just check optical power levels and see if they are in limits.
>Uhm, no.
>*Maximum* transmit power is 4 dBm and max receive is -1 dBm, so an
That example is matching on IP address (rather than protocol), but I see some
differences in what I've been doing. Will try it as soon as I get a chance.
Thanks,
Ray
On 7. Sep 2010, at 22:18 Uhr, Roger Wiklund wrote:
> Check this link out,
>
> http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1498451
>
Hi Jan,
Not. I already tried "set interface Dialer3" instead of the next-hop. :/
Thanks,
Ray
On 8. Sep 2010, at 14:47 Uhr, Jan Gregor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> glad that first part worked. I would suggest change the PBR route-map to
> "set interface Dialer3". Maybe that helps, maybe not :).
>
> Best
Hi Pete
Thanks i also thought of that but this still doesn't explain why for example in
a dual dmvpn cloud / dual hub scenario you have to use different network-id's
for each cloud as per the design guides. Because if it doesn't matter why not
use the same network-id for the two dmvpn clouds
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 10:02:46 +0200, you wrote:
>> *Maximum* transmit power is 4 dBm and max receive is -1 dBm, so an
>> attenuator is certainly highly recommended for short distances.
> Yes, but it won't be transmitting max power for sure.
No... it might be transmitting with only 2, or even 0 dBm
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 09:59, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:12:37 +0200, you wrote:
>
> > He should actually be ok even with ER and no attenuators as minimum
> > transmit power is -4.7 dBm and max receive power is -1 dBm (per cisco
> > site). Just check optical power level
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:12:37 +0200, you wrote:
> He should actually be ok even with ER and no attenuators as minimum
> transmit power is -4.7 dBm and max receive power is -1 dBm (per cisco
> site). Just check optical power levels and see if they are in limits.
Uhm, no.
*Maximum* transmit power is
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Danijel wrote:
He should actually be ok even with ER and no attenuators as minimum
transmit power is -4.7 dBm and max receive power is -1 dBm (per cisco
site). Just check optical power levels and see if they are in limits.
Well, the maximum allowable transmit power is +4 d
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 07:55, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Felix Nkansah wrote:
>
> I am told that using the LR for short distance connections would cause
>> problems, but we don't have time to order new transceivers.
>>
>
> 10GBASE-LR is for 1m - 10km distances. We routinely
26 matches
Mail list logo
