Hello,
Hoping someone can offer advice on hardware. We're going to be offering
bandwidth to our colo customers. Initially we're bringing in a single
100mbit connection (Level3) but planning to add a Verizon circuit in the
near future and do BGP (full routes from both providers). We're looki
On Jan 27, 2011, at 7:20 PM, "Mike"
wrote:
>
> I was doing some troubleshooting on my 2950g switch. The 'management
> interface', is vlan1, and had an ip address and so forth in it I could reach.
> Apparently, a stupid move was to go into config mode and type the following
>
> interface vl
And L2TPv3 is supported. Recent code doesn't allow a bridge-group to be
defined on a tunnel.
David
--
http://dcp.dcptech.com
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ian Henderson
> Sent: Thursday, January
Try getting someone to power cycle the switch. I'm presuming that you have
written your previous config to flash.
Mark
On 28-Jan-2011, at 9:15 AM, Mike wrote:
>
> I was doing some troubleshooting on my 2950g switch. The 'management
> interface', is vlan1, and had an ip address and so forth
On 28/01/2011, at 5:17 AM, Roger Wiklund wrote:
> I've setup a GRE tunnel from Router A to Router B.
> I've configured bridging between Tunnel0 and LAN interface on Router A
> and Router B
While this is possible, its ten times easier and more reliable to use L2TPv3.
I was doing some troubleshooting on my 2950g switch. The 'management
interface', is vlan1, and had an ip address and so forth in it I could
reach. Apparently, a stupid move was to go into config mode and type the
following
interface vlan 300
At that point, my telnet management session
Tom,
N2232 + UCS 6100 for C-Series connectivity and in-band management via UCSM is
not supported today, and wouldn't work even if you tried.
Yes, all the hardware is capable. It's just a matter of brining that capability
into the UCSM software. Ping your Cisco SE for details ;)
-Brad Hedlund
Hi list,
Slightly off-topic for NSP, but was just wondering if anyone's tried plugging a
2232PP Nexus FEX into a UCS 6100 series fabric interconnect?
This doesn't appear to be supported (although it's apparently possible to plug
one of the 48x GigE FEXs in), but I'm curious whether it currently
On 28/01/2011, at 10:12 AM, Manu Chao wrote:
> Because FPGA/EPLD upgrade operation is a disruptive operation, it is not
> always possible to upgrade both software and firmware.
> --> Do you think or may be do you know if it is an issue having an up-to-date
> NX-OS 5.x with old EPLD release 4.x?
On 27/01/2011 23:04, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
This doesn't make sense anymore form price/performance point of view.
depends if you buy new or used.
Nick
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cis
I wasn't aware that ASR1001 was cheaper than Cisco 7201 ;) Good to know,
thanks!
2011/1/28 Łukasz Bromirski
> On 2011-01-27 23:44, Manu Chao wrote:
>
>> I recommand you two Cisco 7201
>>
>
> This doesn't make sense anymore form price/performance point of view.
>
> The 7201 is a 7200 based off NP
Thanks for your answer Lincoln,
Just curious:
Because FPGA/EPLD **upgrade operation is a disruptive **operation, it is not
always possible to upgrade both software and firmware.
--> Do you think or may be do you know if it is an issue having an
up-to-date NX-OS 5.x with old EPLD release 4.x?
On
Hi Sebastian,
Unfortunately the Command Reference was showing an old information.
There was an enhancement fix in 12.2(46)SG to enable the 'access-list
hardware capture mode' command on Sup6 as well, so you can enable it
vlan capture mode.
By the way, the Command Reference is now reflecting the c
On 2011-01-27 23:44, Manu Chao wrote:
I recommand you two Cisco 7201
This doesn't make sense anymore form price/performance point of view.
The 7201 is a 7200 based off NPE-G1, and it's software-based router
priced at 24k$ GPL.
The ASR 1001 is hardware-based router that has 4 GE interfaces and
Lincoln,
We've had two major bugs and potentially a 3rd pop up this last week up that
have been root caused due to ISSU.. They could have been because we ISSU'ed
from the software that the platforms have shipped with pre 4.2, which were
ultimately ISSU'ed to 4.2(4).. Based on the bugs we've found
I recommand you two Cisco 7201
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Dovid Bender wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am new to Cisco (other than starting a CCNA course 10 years ago but never
> finishing it).
>
> Our company is now becoming multi homed and we need to BGP our own IP's.
>
> We need at least three Et
On 27/01/2011, at 10:19 PM, Manu Chao wrote:
> I need to upgrade (ISSU) multiples N7K Dual Supervisor running vPC domains
> from NX-OS 4.2(6) to 5.1(1a).
ISSU from 4.2(6) to 5.1(1a) is non-disruptive. you should be able to upgrade
with no disruption to service.
having said that, always careful
Hi Vijay,
Thanks, that was very helpful.
With the help of the troubleshooting tools you suggested, we finally
determined the culprit.
In addition to the configs I shared, we also had:
--
class-map connection_limits
match any
!
policy-map outside_policy
class connection_
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:18:54PM +0100, Manu Chao wrote:
> I need to upgrade (ISSU) multiples N7K Dual Supervisor running vPC domains
> from NX-OS 4.2(6) to 5.1(1a).
>
> Planned to upgrade first vPC operationnal Secondary chassis then Primary.
>
> I have 2 questions:
> - Do you know if vPC is c
Oh geeze. That easy, huh?
Thanks.
--
Sent from my mobile device.
On 2011-01-27, at 2:31 PM, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 28 January 2011 08:23, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
>> XR has mpls ip-ttl-propagate disable, but I can't find the hook to prevent
>> ttl prooagation for forwarded pack
Hi,
On 28 January 2011 08:23, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> XR has mpls ip-ttl-propagate disable, but I can't find the hook to prevent
> ttl prooagation for forwarded packets only. It does exist, doesn't it? :|
mpls ip-ttl-propagate disable forwarded
mpls ip-ttl-propagate disable local
kind regards
XR has mpls ip-ttl-propagate disable, but I can't find the hook to prevent ttl
prooagation for forwarded packets only. It does exist, doesn't it? :|
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
Are there any other L3 VLAN interfaces on the chassis? I'm not sure
about that particular one, but a lot of the smaller Cisco switches only
support 1 active L3 interface, since they're switches, not full-blown
routers.
Ken Matlock
Network Analyst
Exempla Healthcare
(303) 467-4671
matlo...@exempla.
I put a basic config together in a lab and do not see any issues.
Ensure that you have permitted the traffic on your outside interface
ACL. Without a permit for the traffic I get the same "Deny TCP (no
connection)" messages that you listed.
Use the packet tracer feature on the ASA to verify that
Anyone seen this before, 3925 running 15.0(1)M4, with a 4 port ESW card. VLAN
int is down/down, while 'show vlan-switch' shows vlan active. Show spanning
tree for this VLAN shows a switchport on the 4 port card forwarding on this
VLAN. It's happened a couple times to us on this device. Shutt
Is it possible to monitor a service-policy usage or hits on ASA (ver 8.2)?
I have to upgrade firmware and use NSEL?
I think it has to be similar to CISCO-CLASS-BASED-QOS-MIB for router.
--
Saluti
Mirko
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.net
I'm trying to accomplish the following:
Host A - 10.10.10.10/24
|
Router A
|
"Internet"
|
Router B
|
Host B - 10.10.10.20/24
I've setup a GRE tunnel from Router A to Router B.
I've configured bridgin
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:51:21AM -0800, Mack McBride wrote:
> We did more extensive testing in our lab and found that a default
> would cause DFC equipped blades to fail if it came up before the
> DFCs ran the TestFibDevices test but it was a Major Error instead
> of a minor error. CFC and
On 27/01/11 16:10, Eric Gauthier wrote:
Hello,
I have a subnet spanning two 6500s which are running GLBP as well
as uRFP checking on their SVI. Our monitoring server happens
to be connected to one of the routers on a different subnet:
Monitor --> Router A (x.y.z.2) --> Network Core
Hello,
I have a subnet spanning two 6500s which are running GLBP as well
as uRFP checking on their SVI. Our monitoring server happens
to be connected to one of the routers on a different subnet:
Monitor --> Router A (x.y.z.2) --> Network Core
|
(GBLB subnet x.y.z.0/24)
Dovid,
Since your company already owns an AS , external consulting would probably
be the best way to go. Dealing with BGP sometimes can be tricky and needs a
lot of knowledge, it can be very dangerous for a CCNA to try to set this up
like a lab.
But I strongly recommend you these 2 books, so you
Hi all,
I've opened a new thread for this issue (was: "asymmetric multihoming &
nat").
Having an issue on an ASA device (8.2(4)) with tcp-state-bypass enabled.
Despite these configs:
access-list tcp_state_bypass_acl extended permit ip any host 12.0.1.28
access-list tcp_state_bypass_acl exte
On 27/01/2011 16:00, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
Of course he is.
It certainly adds extra resilience if you have an individual bearer link
failure. But it also not unreasonable to assume that adding links into a
LAG will increase its throughput. Unfortunately, this is often not the
case on
Hi David,
On 27/01/2011, at 5:29 PM, Dovid Bender wrote:
> 1) I do not know much about Cisco. I assumed that if one router failed then
> the second one would do the BGP.
> 2) We have an AS and I was told that we would need to BGP to advertise our
> IP's. We also need to do it so we are ISP inde
It shouldn't be so complicated, get yourself 2 refurbished 7201 VXR with 1GB
RAM (it comes with three Gigabit interfaces)
Connect each provider to a different router on one of the Giga interfaces, set
a bgp peer to each provider and ask them to send you default originate
Connect both routers to y
Jeferson,
1) I do not know much about Cisco. I assumed that if one router failed then the
second one would do the BGP.
2) We have an AS and I was told that we would need to BGP to advertise our
IP's. We also need to do it so we are ISP independent and can decide who to
work with.
3) What othe
Hi,
BGP can load-balance but doesnt not scale/converge well and fast as a strong
IGP such as OSPF.
What is the need to run BGP ? ask yourself? Are you becoming an AS or is
just because you've heard people set up multihome using BGP?
If this is not the case, you can always conference the 3 ISP to
Hi All,
I am new to Cisco (other than starting a CCNA course 10 years ago but never
finishing it).
Our company is now becoming multi homed and we need to BGP our own IP's.
We need at least three Ethernet connections. We will be connecting to two
providers and then a third for our network. The
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 08:53:18AM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 27/01/2011 07:57, Mohammad Khalil wrote:
> >its on Cisco 7606-S , the connection is port channel with 5 physical
> >interfaces
>
> Oh, you Really Don't Want To Do That(tm). For etherchannels on
> EARL7 architecture, if you want
Andrew,
Thanks very much for the additional insights.
Further troubleshooting has shown that it appears to be our firewall
blocking the asymmetric traffic. The ASA appears to be blocking the SYN
ACK since it didn't see the SYN.
2011-01-26 16:53:59Local4.Debug10.10.30.3%ASA-7-6090
On Jan 27, 2011, at 7:32 AM, mailto:danvo...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
Yes, vPC is compatible with ISSU and both os will work together while upgrading
both boxes.
But upgrading from 4.2 to 5.x is disruptive
+1
I'm sure the release notes say it, but the 4.x to 5.x major requires a full
reload.
Hi all,
I have a Core network where we started testing GPON from a supplier, all is
good, but today i noticed that suddenly a GMPLS interface appeared in my
conf., as i was configuring the box o noticed the interface just being
there, it's not (for now) doing nothing, the only thing connected to t
Cisco has advised us to not use issu when possible.. we have had a few weird
bugs from it after the fact.. we are running 4.2(4)..
On Jan 27, 2011 7:32 AM, wrote:
> Yes, vPC is compatible with ISSU and both os will work together while
upgrading both boxes.
>
> But upgrading from 4.2 to 5.x is dis
Yes, vPC is compatible with ISSU and both os will work together while upgrading
both boxes.
But upgrading from 4.2 to 5.x is disruptive
Sent from my mobile
On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:19 AM, Manu Chao wrote:
> I need to upgrade (ISSU) multiples N7K Dual Supervisor running vPC domains
> from NX-OS
On 27/01/2011 11:30, jack daniels wrote:
I have a vey basic doubt about two scenarios -
1) SCENARIO 1
VLAN X , VLAN Y , VLAN Z -HUB---switch
will vlan headers be kept intact and communication between
a) VLAN X (SUBNET 1) and its gateway on switch will happen
b) VLAN Y (SUBNET 2) and its
Hi Guys,
I have a vey basic doubt about two scenarios -
1) SCENARIO 1
VLAN X , VLAN Y , VLAN Z -HUB---switch
will vlan headers be kept intact and communication between
a) VLAN X (SUBNET 1) and its gateway on switch will happen
b) VLAN Y (SUBNET 2) and its gateway on switch will happen
c)
I need to upgrade (ISSU) multiples N7K Dual Supervisor running vPC domains
from NX-OS 4.2(6) to 5.1(1a).
Planned to upgrade first vPC operationnal Secondary chassis then Primary.
I have 2 questions:
- Do you know if vPC is compatible with ISSU?
- Does vPC work between NX-OS 4.2 and 5.1?
Thanks f
-Original Message-
From: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@greenie.muc.de]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:39 AM
To: Mack McBride
Cc: Church, Charles; nsp-cisco
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Move from SXI4 to SXI5
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:57:39PM -0800, Mack McBride wrote:
> I have only encoun
On 27/01/2011 07:57, Mohammad Khalil wrote:
its on Cisco 7606-S , the connection is port channel with 5 physical interfaces
Oh, you Really Don't Want To Do That(tm). For etherchannels on EARL7
architecture, if you want your load balancing to be roughly equal, you need
to ensure that your por
> My employer is in the process of doing a review of our current "standard
> deployment" hardware we use for parts of our network. At present we have
> gone from 3750Gs to 3750Xs, but we are in the middle of a budget crunch
and
> are re-evaluating. Our typical deployment ranges from 12 to 140
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:57:39PM -0800, Mack McBride wrote:
> I have only encountered one bug (Cisco internal bug - not public) related to
> IPv6 routes covering ::/96
> You will get a health test fail on reboot. The sup will register a minor
> error and the 67xx blades with DFC will fail
51 matches
Mail list logo
