Hello Group,
Regarding the issue we had with MTU sizes, we implemented a change last night
which looks to have cleared the problem.
Layout is like this:
Server --- L3 switch --- ME3600X --mpls-- 3750ME --L2-- Fortigate --- Internet
MTU sizes were as follows:
Server --- L3 switch - 1500
L3
Sorry for the late reply,
You were correct. One end was configured for LACP and the other, PagP.
However, I could look at the other end straight away hence my post to
the list to see if someone could give me some pointers to look for
once I eventually got access to the other end.
Many thanks
I have been trying to force a giga port to come up without any physical
device connected on this port wuith a c6500. I thought the trick was to
set no keepalive on the interface but the port is not coming up and
stays down.
I also disabled auto negogation and turned the port in to speed 1000
On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 09:07 +0200, Alexandre Durand wrote:
I have been trying to force a giga port to come up without any
physical device connected on this port wuith a c6500. I thought the
trick was to set no keepalive on the interface but the port is not
coming up and stays down.
AFAIK the
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Alexandre Durand
alexandre.dur...@tasfrance.com wrote:
I have been trying to force a giga port to come up without any physical
device connected on this port wuith a c6500. I thought the trick was to set
no keepalive on the interface but the port is not coming
On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 11:28 +0200, Alexandre Durand wrote:
On 15/07/11 10:51, Peter Rathlev wrote:
AFAIK the Catalyst switches cannot fake an up link. The specific
problem you're trying to solve might have another solution though.
What kind of other solution Peter?
Pardon me, but that's
Well it s not really a problem, I just don t want to connect anything
on this port but still get the port up so I can advertise the network
over ospf and bgp. I could use loopback interfaces instead but I ll get
/32 mask advertised over ospf ... and I want to advertise a network mask
like
I could use loopback interfaces instead but I ll get /32 mask advertised over
ospf ... and I want to advertise a network mask
like /24. Or an other solution may be to resdtribute static null route with
/24 prefix from this routeur ...
A loopback interface is an interface - if you want to
On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 12:01 +0200, Alexandre Durand wrote:
Well it s not really a problem, I just don t want to connect anything
on this port but still get the port up so I can advertise the network
over ospf and bgp. I could use loopback interfaces instead but I ll
get /32 mask advertised
Hi Peter,
What kind of other solution Peter?
On 15/07/11 10:51, Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 09:07 +0200, Alexandre Durand wrote:
I have been trying to force a giga port to come up without any
physical device connected on this port wuith a c6500. I thought the
trick was to set
Hi Andrew,
No negociate is not available ont he interface. and i forced speed and
duplex but with no success to turn this port up.
regards
On 15/07/11 11:05, Andrew Miehs wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Alexandre Durand
alexandre.dur...@tasfrance.com
int lo0
ip ospf network point-to-point
That'll advertise lo0 address with configured mask instead of /32.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Alexandre Durand
alexandre.dur...@tasfrance.com wrote:
Hi Andrew,
No negociate is not available ont he interface. and i forced speed and
duplex but with
You can use the ip ospf network point-to-point command to make ospf advertise
the right subnet of a loopback interface.
Från: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net]
f#246;r Alexandre Durand [alexandre.dur...@tasfrance.com]
Hi everybody,
a customer connected with a 7204VXR (NPE-225), PA-E3 has bandwith-problems. The
maximum
outgoing TCP-throughput amounts only 15Mbit/s instead of 34Mbit/s (measured
with iperf
from the customer-side:
[ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 17.4 MBytes 14.6 Mbits/sec
Incoming bandwith is ok:
[ 4]
Is that a TCP test on iperf?
Try again using UDP, it may be the long fat pipe issue
http://bradhedlund.com/2008/12/19/how-to-calculate-tcp-throughput-for-lo
ng-distance-links/
Ian
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
boun...@puck.nether.net]
Hi,
Scenario:
Two ISP's providing an Internet connection.Point to point connections are on
public IP address.
LAN is on Private address space.
Targetted Setup.
Have automatic redundancy where ISP A is backup to ISP B.
From my setup when ISP B goes down traffic is not beign NATed to ISP A.Hence
Dark fibre. No, I said that I never saw the far side go up after
getting err-disabled.
-Mensagem original-
De: Kevin Graham [mailto:kgra...@industrial-marshmallow.com]
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 14 de julho de 2011 20:27
Para: Leonardo Gama Souza
Cc: Antonio Soares; Andrew Koch;
Hi Ian,
Is that a TCP test on iperf?
Yes, that was the result of a TCP-test on iperf.
Try again using UDP,
I did, there I reach 32Mbit/s in both directions.
it may be the long fat pipe issue
http://bradhedlund.com/2008/12/19/how-to-calculate-tcp-throughput-for-lo
ng-distance-links/
Thank you all. I might use the 2 options and check out. I was looking a
way to advertise the whole network and the ip ospf network
point-to-point was out of my mind.
Peter, why a floating null0 static route will be a preferred choice
compared to a normal static route (AD=1)
regards
alex
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Werner Detter wrote:
Hi Ian,
Is that a TCP test on iperf?
Yes, that was the result of a TCP-test on iperf.
Also make sure you are using a modern enough version of iperf. Some
versions needed a patch to work correctly with some versions of the linux
kernel.
Try
Hi,
it may be the long fat pipe issue
http://bradhedlund.com/2008/12/19/how-to-calculate-tcp-throughput-for-lo
ng-distance-links/
well, the latency is pretty much below 3ms so with a window-size of
64KB i get a calculated result of 174Mbit/s tcp-throughput ...
Any other idea's ?
Thank you,
That link is a fantastic read. Thanks for posting!
One question I have though - why is a UDP test is better? Simply because it's
inherently made up of small packets? I'd imagine the UDP iPerf test doesn't
try to send large byte UDP packets, but that might be totally incorrect; I
haven't
I would add a delay in to both of the SLA definitions, slightly larger than
the frequency of the ip sla definition above:
track 1 rtr 1 reachability ! track 2 rtr 2 reachability
track 1 rtr 1 reachability
delay down 7 up 7
track 2 rtr 2 reachability
delay down 7 up 7
That means that if you
UDP doesn't have the tcp synchronisation window, so you don't see the
same limit.
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jason Lixfeld
Sent: 15 July 2011 14:31
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re:
Hi,
i don't understand why i do have the full TCP-bandwith of 32Mbit/s for
incoming traffic but for outgoing there is max. 19Mbit/s TCP-bandwith
possible? Both tests were processed with the same devices...
regards,
Werner
Am 15.07.11 13:52, schrieb Werner Detter:
Hi Ian,
Is that a TCP test
Hi,
Thanks for the inputs.
I figured out that only one side had errdisable recovery for UDLD, and as the
state machine (aggressive mode) didn't detected the neighbor after recovery, it
wouldn't bring the interface down.
The recommendation is not enable automatic recovery for UDLD, at all.
Thanks Lan for the response.
I have set authentication host-mode multi-domain . This time, IP
Phone authenticates but the PC on the other hand does not prompt me for
username and password at all. Here is my configuration on the fastEthernet
port
interface FastEthernet0/10
switchport access vlan
Hi,
For the second time in 7 months, I had a 2970 go south on me. I get a
power light, and thats about it and no console no nothing. The thing
appeared to have some sort of trouble earlier in the day with it
interrupting routing briefly between some routers but then it settled
down, dying
I plan on digging around some on my own, but wanted to quickly see if
anyone has any data, or lab experience etc on this.
My question is that if I am connected to an access port, and I send a
tagged frame, will this frame make it to the VLAN in question ?
Thanks.
--
Brandon Applegate - CCIE
You can mix match 3750 boxes and stack up to 9 of them together into
a virtual chassis. The newer 3750X platform even has field replaceable
parts.
For your 2970, take a hard look at the capacitors. They are of a vintage
when there was considerable problems across the industry:
In some simple testing I did awhile back on the 5K the frame was dropped,
not sure about the 7K however. The only oddity I had with regards to
frames being accepted which probably shouldn't was on a port-channel
member port in active mode (LACP) which was physical up but LACP was not
active on
If the port is configured as an access port for vlan X, it will only
accept untagged frames or frames with vlan X, or 0.
Ian
On 7/15/11 12:09 PM, Phil Bedard wrote:
In some simple testing I did awhile back on the 5K the frame was dropped,
not sure about the 7K however. The only oddity I had
I have 6x Nexus 5k. I have been upgrading the NX-OS in all of them. I've
done all of the using TFTP with no issues but there is one of the that keep
giving me the same error over and over.
Here is the error.(TFTP get operation failed:Undefined error code (2) )
have anyone of you seen this
33 matches
Mail list logo
