Re: [c-nsp] LNS alternative to 7200?

2010-10-14 Thread John Elliot
> > We are doing just this with a couple of 2851's - MPLS/BGP/OSPF/IPv6/NAT for a > small POP. The one 2851 I have in mind is maxed out with 1G third party > approved DRAM and also runs a full BGP table. Initially after boot it takes a > little while to munge the full BGP feed (3 or 4 mins fro

Re: [c-nsp] LNS alternative to 7200?

2010-10-14 Thread Reuben Farrelly
We are doing just this with a couple of 2851's - MPLS/BGP/OSPF/IPv6/NAT for a small POP. The one 2851 I have in mind is maxed out with 1G third party approved DRAM and also runs a full BGP table. Initially after boot it takes a little while to munge the full BGP feed (3 or 4 mins from memory)

[c-nsp] LNS alternative to 7200?

2010-10-14 Thread John Elliot
Hi, We have a bunch of 7200's currently terminating dsl tails(Also doing mpls/vrf's etc) - We are rolling out a new site, and have an initial requirement(6-12months) to only support ~50 DSL tails, and also have a limited budget - Are there any alternatives to the 7200's that we can use for

Re: [c-nsp] 12.4 for 7205vxr npe-g2 recommendation?

2010-10-14 Thread Dale Shaw
Hi, On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:00 AM, LM wrote: > just that, any recommendation? > > services running: > - nat > - eigrp > - bgp > - hsrp > - pim > - cdp > - gre tunnels > - ipsec 12.4(15)T -- latest. Cheers, Dale ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@

Re: [c-nsp] SXI4a

2010-10-14 Thread Chris Evans
Open a tac case please? On Oct 14, 2010 3:29 PM, "Grzegorz Janoszka" wrote: > On 14-10-10 09:40, Alexander Clouter wrote: >> SXI4a is working fine on one of our 6500's and I updated from SXI3 to >> SXI4a on the other two on Tuesday. No problems so far, although: > > Just discovered an interesting

Re: [c-nsp] 4-byte ASN Support on 7600 SRE2

2010-10-14 Thread Roman Sokolov
Hello, Gary T. Giesen wrote: Is anyone running SRE2 (or 1) in production on their Cisco 7600s? Any significant gotchas? Currently running SRD4 and I would like to gain 4-byte ASN support.. Half year ago tried to switch from SRD3 to SRE and hit problems with sfp's: even with unsupported-transc

Re: [c-nsp] SXI4a

2010-10-14 Thread Grzegorz Janoszka
On 14-10-10 09:40, Alexander Clouter wrote: SXI4a is working fine on one of our 6500's and I updated from SXI3 to SXI4a on the other two on Tuesday. No problems so far, although: Just discovered an interesting bug on SXI4. Take an interface, run standby version 2 there, create an IPv6 HSRP ad

[c-nsp] 12.4 for 7205vxr npe-g2 recommendation?

2010-10-14 Thread LM
just that, any recommendation? services running: - nat - eigrp - bgp - hsrp - pim - cdp - gre tunnels - ipsec ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pip

Re: [c-nsp] 2821 NAT Limitations

2010-10-14 Thread Rodney Dunn
On 10/14/10 8:29 AM, Ge Moua wrote: Rodney, thanks for the correction and feedback. Is it true then that the ASR1K platform could achieve the same amount of NAT throughput without severe resource exhaustion much like the ASA? CPU and Memory...yes as it's all done in hardware. If so the t

Re: [c-nsp] 2821 NAT Limitations

2010-10-14 Thread Dan Letkeman
I'm pushing about 30mbit, but we have a content filter that everyone is force to go through, which essentially doubles the nat entries on the router (it's just the way it works). Would we be better off getting two 5510's? and load balancing? Dan. On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Ryan West wrote

Re: [c-nsp] 2821 NAT Limitations

2010-10-14 Thread Ryan West
Dan, >-Original Message- >From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net >[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Dan Letkeman >Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:26 AM >To: rod...@cisco.com >Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 2821 NAT Limitations > >I'll look in

Re: [c-nsp] 2821 NAT Limitations

2010-10-14 Thread Dan Letkeman
I'll look into getting an ASA. My graphs show about 4 nat translations at the time the router had issues, would an ASA5510 be the right choice or would you go with a 5520? Dan. On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Rodney Dunn wrote: > In the spirit of technical accuracy. > > NAT is a more compl

Re: [c-nsp] 2821 NAT Limitations

2010-10-14 Thread Ge Moua
Rodney, thanks for the correction and feedback. Is it true then that the ASR1K platform could achieve the same amount of NAT throughput without severe resource exhaustion much like the ASA? If so the this would be a viable option for the OP as "route-map" features would also be available on

Re: [c-nsp] 4-byte ASN Support on 7600 SRE2

2010-10-14 Thread Francisco Nascimento
Since last night one of our 7600s is running SRE2 (ADVIP). Too early to ascertain what the score is. On the flip side - we have a 7206VXR running flawlessly for 4 weeks with SRE2 (ADVIP). Unfortunately that box is only doing OSPF/LDP/BGP/IPv6(native, not 6PE) and nothing else, so can't comment on

Re: [c-nsp] 2821 NAT Limitations

2010-10-14 Thread Rodney Dunn
In the spirit of technical accuracy. NAT is a more complex feature than it appears on the surface. In regards to the "process switch" portion. NAT today for normal http traffic is CEF switched, even the SYN's, along with the payload data. The FIN/RST's are punted to tear the translations down.

Re: [c-nsp] BFD and IPv6 on 6500?

2010-10-14 Thread Mark Tinka
On Tuesday, October 05, 2010 08:17:45 pm Daniel Verlouw wrote: > yes, an IPv4 BFD down event will tear down the whole > adjacency. Yes, that's right, actually, since there really is only one adjacency for both address families, even though there are multiple address families, on the wire. C

Re: [c-nsp] SXI4a

2010-10-14 Thread Alexander Clouter
Dan Holme wrote: > >> We have identified two distinct memory leaks that cause the dead pool to >> increase over time in our environment. One of them appears when prefix lists >> are updated. Still trying to isolate the other. > > Some time has passed; can anybody elaborate on their experiences