Hi Scott.
I have found that for my 3845 (running 15.0) with PRI in slots 0/0/0 I can
use OID 1.3.6.1.4.1.9.10.19.1.1.9.1.3.0.0
This is the CISCO-POP-MGMT-MIB
(ftp://ftp.cisco.com/pub/mibs/v2/CISCO-POP-MGMT-MIB.my)
The table you are polling is cpmDS0UsageTable where each entry is indexed like:
LinkedIn
Prakash Kalsaria pidió añadirte como contacto en LinkedIn:
--
Sebastián,
I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
- Prakash Kalsaria
Aceptar invitación de Prakash Kalsaria
Jason
afair SNMP is VRF-aware, haven't heard of exception with traps,
SNMP traps are also vrf-aware in XR.
tacacs+ and syslog are not yet.
indeed, last time I checked those were planned for 4.1 (along with DNS
and FTP/TFTP, if I recall correctly)
oli
Howdy,
I think most folks can agree that the amount of traffic on the Internet is
being carried by 6500/7600 series gear is probably a pretty big percentage.
This is most likely mainly due to cost, density, and performance (despite their
flaws). The other nice thing about them is that they are
We are personally not installing anymore 6500 unless we have to in the data
centers... nexus all the way.
On Feb 4, 2011 8:20 AM, Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com wrote:
Howdy,
I think most folks can agree that the amount of traffic on the Internet is
being carried by 6500/7600 series gear
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All:
Any caveats with using the same route-map for v4 and v6 BGP peering
sessions? What about statements with match statements that match either
v4 and v6?
e.g.
route-map foo permit 10
match ip next-hop foo
match ipv6 next-hop bar
Would that
The most comparable for the 7600 is the ASR 9K but the cost differential is
significant.
The Nexus 7000 is supposed to replace the 6500 for an aggregation switch but
the cost
and other issues (bugs and lack of XL card) has slowed adoption.
The other issues are getting sorted out which should
Or you could find the index of the interface from within the device itself with
command:
show snmp mib ifmib ifindex interface name
HTH
Ziv
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Per Carlson
Sent: Friday,
I wouldn't say Nexus is bleeding edge, it's been around for a while now!
Then main drawback for me is MPLS support, but I believe it's coming.
--Daniel Holme
On 4 Feb 2011, at 16:22, Mack McBride mack.mcbr...@viawest.com wrote:
The most comparable for the 7600 is the ASR 9K but the cost
On 2/4/2011 10:22 AM, Mack McBride wrote:
The most comparable for the 7600 is the ASR 9K but the cost differential is
significant.
The Nexus 7000 is supposed to replace the 6500 for an aggregation switch but
the cost
On a gigabit basis, the N7K is cheaper and has many more working
On 2/4/2011 11:23 AM, Daniel Holme wrote:
I wouldn't say Nexus is bleeding edge, it's been around for a while now!
Then main drawback for me is MPLS support, but I believe it's coming.
--Daniel Holme
Yup, probably the single most requested feature that I see at this point.
tv
I concurr... already we have seen less issues with our 7ks than we have with
our 6500s both software and hardware wise. Nx-os isn't bloated with
crap.yet
On Feb 4, 2011 1:41 PM, Tony Varriale tvarri...@comcast.net wrote:
On 2/4/2011 10:22 AM, Mack McBride wrote:
The most comparable for the
I personally don't want the Nexus platforms to be bloated down with
un-needed features.. Hence why the 6500 has had some many problems over the
years.. The Nexus platforms were meant to be data center platforms. Most
data centers you don't need large routing tables, you don't need MPLS, you
don't
I am currently running a Cisco 7206vxr with NPE-G2 and 2GB. I am peaking at
200M of Internet traffic on one of the GigE ports with 40K pps aggregate.
CPU over the last 72 hours looks like the following:
554433333344453233345545545444322232334454545454
I am looking for what router I should look at upgrading to or if there is
plenty of beef left in
this one?
You're going to see more CPU usage. As I recall, when I reached 60k pps (on a
single interface) my CPU would really spike and control-plane functions were
sluggish. I am subject to
So far we are happy with our ASR1004s. It's a bit misleading when you
first look at the product - because whereas 7206 == 6 PA slots, 1004
really has 8 (standard / half-height) SPA slots. Sounds like it would fit
what you are doing nicely. I believe the ASR line is the official
sucessor to
Any caveats with using the same route-map for v4 and v6 BGP peering
sessions? What about statements with match statements that match
either
v4 and v6?
e.g.
route-map foo permit 10
match ip next-hop foo
match ipv6 next-hop bar
Would that match v4 or v6, depending on the address
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 10:20:00PM +0100, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:
route-map foo permit 10
match ip next-hop foo
match ipv6 next-hop bar
Would that match v4 or v6, depending on the address type?
haven't checked in the lab, but strictly speaking, the above map would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oliver,
route-map foo permit 10
match ip next-hop foo
match ipv6 next-hop bar
Would that match v4 or v6, depending on the address type?
haven't checked in the lab, but strictly speaking, the above map would
require both conditions to be
+1 for separate sets of route-maps
--chip
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 10:20:00PM +0100, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:
route-map foo permit 10
match ip next-hop foo
match ipv6 next-hop bar
Would that match
On 2/4/2011 2:40 PM, Rhino Lists wrote:
I am currently running a Cisco 7206vxr with NPE-G2 and 2GB. I am peaking at
200M of Internet traffic on one of the GigE ports with 40K pps aggregate.
CPU over the last 72 hours looks like the following:
The cost per gigabit is not at parity yet for low gigabit rates.
If you are maxing out a 7600 then a ASR 9K is definitely the next step.
The ASR 9K seems to be very mature for its age.
The requirement for full IPv4 tables is governed by multi-homed bgp customers
connected at the aggregation
On 2011-02-04 21:40, Rhino Lists wrote:
I am currently running a Cisco 7206vxr with NPE-G2 and 2GB. I am peaking at
200M of Internet traffic on one of the GigE ports with 40K pps aggregate.
CPU over the last 72 hours looks like the following:
I am running BGP and taking 2 Full Routes from 2
I am looking for a good network simulation/emulator software that can
analyze configs of ASA's , Routers, and Switches. I have been trying to use
GNS3 and find that there are too many limitations using the ASA/PIX features
Thanks
John
___
On 04-02-11 23:06, Devon True wrote:
route-map foo permit 10
match ip next-hop foo
match ipv6 next-hop bar
Would that match v4 or v6, depending on the address type?
haven't checked in the lab, but strictly speaking, the above map would
require both conditions to be met, which is not
I've been seeing some weird SSRAM Consistency Check errors on a 7606S
with RSP720-3cxl.
#sho mls cef inconsistency
Consistency Check Count : 161
TCAM Consistency Check Errors : 0
SSRAM Consistency Check Errors : 1235989
The only blade in the chassis is the RSP720. I tried swapping out the
On 2/4/2011 4:27 PM, Mack McBride wrote:
The cost per gigabit is not at parity yet for low gigabit rates.
If you are talking about 6500 vs N7K (which is what I thought we were
discussing), then the N7K is cheaper. And, so is the service. Just
simple math.
The requirement for full IPv4
Hello,
I have an odd network design request that I'm trying to figure out.
Currently I have an asa 5520 thats configured to NAT a few dozen
private networks to one public IP for desktop access. Simple enough.
What I want do do is create a private network inside the current
network, but give
I wouldn't try to turn the N7K into an edge peering platform.
Which seems inline with my reading of Cisco's strategy: replace the
jack-of-all-trades 6500/7600 platform with mission-specific hardware:
Nexus + ASR1K + ASR9K. They make more money this way, as people won't
move the same chassis
I really appreciate hearing the consensus of this thread, and figured id
chuck in the question we are churning through right now.
What PCore platform should we bet the farm on in the future?
For one-gig P's the asr1k is an affordable platform, but the issue we are
running into is how much longer
Hi,
I have a customer ASA which needs to migrate VPNs from one network IP to
another. In order to keep outages down to a minimum, VPNs are to be
migrated one by one. I was wondering if this is at all possible ... to
start off with, I'd have to set up a second outside interface (which in
itself
On Saturday, January 29, 2011 07:21:22 am Gert Doering
wrote:
Might be a good edge box, but certainly not something I'd
buy for a full BGP setup today. My bet is that we'll
hit 512k (IPv4+IPv6) in less than two years from now.
With 8GB of control plane memory, it could be useful for a
busy
32 matches
Mail list logo
