Hi,
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:33:57PM +, RAZ MUHAMMAD wrote:
I would appreciate if someone can shed some further light on using the
default route or full routing table scenario while multi homed. In this case
hardware is not an issue, I am trying to assess the operational,
differences,
If it is internal WAN environment, why not use PfR/OER? It comes with IOS
and has improved a lot. PfR could dynamically load balance traffic. For
Internet facing the PfR would NOT balance for full routing table but would
do upto five thousand routes or so. I maybe off on the numbers. But still
for
On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 00:23 -0500, Pete Lumbis wrote:
So none of the routes are being installed on RouterA from the BGP
table into the RIB? all the routes are marked as RIB failure in the
BGP table of RouterA?
If this is the case then show ip bgp ipv6 unicast rib-failure should
give the reason
Many thanks for the replies, they confirmed my suspicions and provided some
very useful points and suggestions.
Michael.
--
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
We have 3 campus with on each campus a 6506-E/Sup720-10G as 'master router' and
a 6506/E-Sup32-8gbit as backup router, in a HSRP config. In each router we also
have GBIC boards to connect the different buildings. These Sup32 routers also
act as L2 concentrator for part of each campus.
Now we
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:05:25PM +, Holemans Wim wrote:
Now we are thinking about connecting both routers to each other on each
campus with a 10G connection. As the Sup32 don't have a 10G yet, we have
multiple options to do so.
We can add a 10G board to the chassis, replace the
I don't think you can do the 1G distribution on the 4900M without converting
the 10G interfaces back to dual 1G. I have heard from others on the list that
this severely limits your queue sizes but. Ymmv. Beating the multi-vendor drum
this is a perfect use for the juniper ex4200 series. I
It is very interesting that a 2:1 8 port 10G X2 card is $37500 for
C6509 and $7500 for 4900M (+ has the ability to use Twingig). So I
would say if don't need the extension capacity of C6506-E go for
something smaller like 4900M.
Also if you will only need 2x10G in the future you also might explore
Hi,
There is an approach of matching on LSB from the prefixes' octets of the
full routing table (even/odd) and increase local-preference for one
provider.
For example:
access-list 1 permit 0.0.0.0 255.254.254.255
access-list 2 permit 0.0.1.0 255.254.254.255
access-list 3 permit 0.1.0.0
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 01:41:34PM -0200, Leonardo Gama Souza wrote:
There is an approach of matching on LSB from the prefixes' octets of the
full routing table (even/odd) and increase local-preference for one
provider.
We have stopped using local-pref for outbound traffic control about
- Original Message -
From: Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de
To: Leonardo Gama Souza leonardo.so...@nec.com.br
Cc: RAZ MUHAMMAD raz.muham...@gmail.com; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] RES: Outbound Load balancing using eBGP
If you start going there, you will end being *stuck* there - having to
fiddle with local-pref again and again, because inevitably, you will
have cases where you prefer a 10-AS-hop-paths over a 2-AS-hop-paths,
and that way, enforce poor connectivity for your users.
(As a well-known net person
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:05:25 +
From: Holemans Wim wim.holem...@ua.ac.be
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] 10G for 6506-E with Sup32-8Gb or replace with
4900M
Based on the price, it seems we best opt to replace the 6506-
E/Sup32 with
Hi all
Do I need to disable firewall to use site to sitevpn?
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-nsp/
No. But if you want to firewall the connections, you'll need to disable
'sysopt connection permit-vpn'
-ryan
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Deric Kwok
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 3:43 PM
To:
I still recommend at least checking out the BGP appliances. You'll never
get any where near even distribution without some kind of active
processing. However, if you are dead set on manual configuration do you
have any idea what your traffic spread is? For example if your customers
are
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Leonardo Gama Souza
leonardo.so...@nec.com.br wrote:
Hi,
There is an approach of matching on LSB from the prefixes' octets of the
full routing table (even/odd) and increase local-preference for one
provider.
For example:
access-list 1 permit 0.0.0.0
No.
same security traffic permit intra-interface; if you need to hair-pin will do
the job.
On a separate note, how about doing-a-little-bit-of-leg-work Yourself?
Google is you friend and the cisco-nsp is NOT you hand-holding-forum.
Regards
./Randy
--- On Thu, 12/23/10, Deric Kwok
Hi,
I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this thread. Your valuable
feedback on the subject is quite useful and would greatly help me in
planning the next move.
Just for your interest, the box I am talking about is a beefed up box
running Vyatta.
Regards
On 20 December 2010 21:30,
Hi Gert,
Just wondering if you have stopped using local-pref manipulation, then do
you rely on BGP protocol to decide the best path based on the decision made
by the algorithm(without any attributes manipulation)?
Raz
On 23 December 2010 17:19, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote:
Hi,
Hi Jay,
Many thanks for providing a practical example and a good piece of advice on
using default routes for dynamic load balancing.
Raz
On 22 December 2010 23:15, Jay Hennigan j...@west.net wrote:
On 12/22/10 2:33 PM, RAZ MUHAMMAD wrote:
I would appreciate if someone can shed some further
- Original Message -
From: Sachin Gupta sagu...@cisco.com
To: Antonio Soares amsoa...@netcabo.pt; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Catalyst 4500 E-Series
The +E chassis has new mux-buffers to support 48G/slot in the redundant
22 matches
Mail list logo
