On Friday, January 28, 2011 12:21:51 am Jeferson Guardia
wrote:
If this is not the case, you can always conference the 3
ISP together and ask them to set up OSPF as a PE-CE
routing between you and them, that would scale and
converge really WELL.
Ummh, I'd never advise anyone to run an IGP
On Friday, January 28, 2011 02:18:51 pm Jim Berwick wrote:
Looking for a switch that can do ingress and egress rate
shaping (or thinking of a 3750 stack and handling rate
shaping on the router upstream), and a router/switch
that can handle full BGP tables from at least two
providers. We
On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 05:33:18 am Nick Hilliard
wrote:
Of course, this assumes that ipv4 prefix growth rate is
consistent with history - which is quite unlikely. It's
likely to go one way or the other, and could easily
escalate. For IPv6, are we likely to see one prefix per
ASN in
The NetIron CER 2000 can store up to
512,000 IPv4 or 128,000 IPv6 unicast
routes, enough to accommodate the full
IPv4 Internet routing table today and
provide a smooth migration path to IPv6.
That is not going to hold you for very long, IMO. If you buy this box for
BGP you are going to
On Feb 5, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Dan Letkeman wrote:
Where i'm stuck is how to add a secondary ip to a routed port on the asa(if
this is even possible) and how to route the traffic through the asa an
not NAT it.
Would this be a use case for a separate virtual context on the ASA?
On 04/02/2011 22:17, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
For me it worked on 6500 SXI afair. For sure it works on IOS XR.
yes, it works very nicely on XR - but XR was designed out of the box to
support this.
Nick
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
On 05/02/2011 02:17, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
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 among these roles,
On Saturday, February 05, 2011 06:09:56 am chip wrote:
+1 for separate sets of route-maps
We also use separate routing policies for both address
families. It's additional work, but leaves you sleeping
better at night.
Also, you never know what advantages this separation could
bring in the
On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:12:14 pm Drew Weaver wrote:
What new platform from Cisco or whomever do you think is,
or will become the next 6500/7600 in terms of how many
companies are going to use them, performance, cost,
density? I don't have any hard numbers to back this up
(aside from
On Saturday, February 05, 2011 12:22:39 am Mack McBride
wrote:
The most comparable for the 7600 is the ASR 9K but the
cost differential is significant.
Not necessarily. There have been very interesting bundles
where a highly-available ASR9000 is cheaper than a 7600 with
an RSP720-3CXL + ES
Yes, I only have the /26 with a pre-existing netmask.
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote:
On 2/4/2011 9:16 PM, Dan Letkeman wrote:
The asa is running 8.3(2), and I have a /26 from our isp to work with.
One of those IP's currently exists on the routed outside
On Saturday, February 05, 2011 11:03:37 am
cisco...@secureobscure.com wrote:
What PCore platform should we bet the farm on in the
future?
For one-gig P's the asr1k is an affordable platform,...
If you look at a box like the ASR1006 or ASR1013, even
10Gbps connectivity could be feasible
Just add a new static route through the migrated IP when the customer is ready
to make the switch.
I did something similar migrating from smaller blocks in to a single /24 a
while back.
All that was required was enabling a new device on the new network with a
proper IP then as I moved each
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:35:48PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
[ 6500 ]
Personally, I'm not sad to see it replaced.
Well, neither am I - but then, I don't really want to buy three different
boxes to replace a single 6500... (with three different operating systems).
But we're not buying
Which types of devices are preferred to be used as NTP servers? Particularly
for an environment of 1000 NTP Cisco clients. I understand that it's a matter
of preference, but I am just trying to understand what most engineers prefer.
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 04:17:17PM -0600, Michael Vinogradsky wrote:
Which types of devices are preferred to be used as NTP servers? Particularly
for an environment of 1000 NTP Cisco clients. I understand that it's a matter
of preference, but I am just trying to understand what most
How critical is it? Do you just need to insure the log timing is in
sync with each other? If it isn't that critical you can make a couple
of cisco boxes stratum 2 NTP servers and then you can point your clients
at them.
If you want something damn accurate see:
Thanks Tim. The scope of the server that I am looking for just needs to sync up
the Cisco clients' system clocks. That's all.
Michael Vinogradsky
Director of Network Engineering
ACBB-BITS
973-474-1836
michael.vinograd...@bitsnetwork.com
-Original Message-
From: Tim Pozar
The design would be comprised of two redundant NTP server in separate
geographic locations. The budget in the ballpark of two 2800 routers. Precision
is not that important.
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf
On 02/05/2011 11:32 PM, Michael Vinogradsky wrote:
The design would be comprised of two redundant NTP server in separate
geographic locations. The budget in the ballpark of two 2800 routers.
Precision is not that important.
Two NTP servers is a bad number. If one malfunctions... how does a
Thanks Tim. The scope of the server that I am looking for just needs
to sync up the Cisco clients' system clocks. That's all.
Do you need to knew what time someone else think it is or just have
your systems syncronized?
If you just need them in sync tell a cisco box it's a S1 server and it
I concur with single platform too. We are now 6500 data center,
core/distribution, internet edge/border. If we go forward, we have to
consider ASR9K, Nexus7000, and even ASR1000. That's where Juniper
MX960 is really a good alternative for us to consider, plus MX960 has
all sorts of MPLS VPN
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 05:32:10PM -0600, Michael Vinogradsky wrote:
The design would be comprised of two redundant NTP server in separate
geographic locations.
As Phil Mayer outlined, you should really consider using three to
protect from a falseticker
The budget in the ballpark of two 2800
On Sunday, February 06, 2011 08:47:44 am schilling wrote:
I concur with single platform too. We are now 6500 data
center, core/distribution, internet edge/border. If we
go forward, we have to consider ASR9K, Nexus7000, and
even ASR1000. That's where Juniper MX960 is really a
good
24 matches
Mail list logo
