On (2011-07-25 21:51 -0700), Rogelio wrote:
Hi,
> Not sure if it's any interest of this group, but I just installed a
> Huawei CX600 router this last week.
I'm very interested, not much word in community for some reason about using
Huawei in L3
> The worst part about the Huawei is probably the
but then you spend 4 x the time configuring and maintaining your network
false economy?
Andrew Jones
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Rogelio
Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2011 2:51 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.neth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joseph Hardeman wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I am hoping that someone can give me some guidance with how to setup
> VRF-Lite and routing with BGP and intra-vrf routing. I have been playing
> with this for about a week now and figured out how to setup vr
Hey All,
Bit of a long shot but is anyone running WAAS mobile client and having issues
with IE7.
I have had reports and now able to replicate issues where IE7 will open and
crash the WAAS mobile client.
Currently have a tac case open but just wanted to see if anyone has run into an
issues lik
Not sure if it's any interest of this group, but I just installed a
Huawei CX600 router this last week.
It's like Cisco quality (garbage!) for the price that Cisco should be
(low!). The commands are very similar (e.g. switchport -> portswitch,
no shut -> undo shut, etc), and you configure it almo
Hi Everyone,
I am hoping that someone can give me some guidance with how to setup
VRF-Lite and routing with BGP and intra-vrf routing. I have been playing
with this for about a week now and figured out how to setup vrf-lite to a
certain point. I know if I apply the ip vrf xx to an interface such
Can someone please share the working Rosen MVPN configuration of Cisco and
Juniper? Do I have to use vrf-table-label or VT interface on Juniper router
to make it working?
--
David W.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.net
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 03:04:53PM -0400, Ross Halliday wrote:
> Has anyone seen this before? I did a couple of quick searches
> but my Google-fu is letting me down. Is there some secret that only
> one possible stanza for uRPF is allowed on this box, unless the
> line isn't present?
Exactly
Dan Letkeman wrote:
>
> I think the server might be over utilized as well, because if we are
> imaging off of one server and then we tftp off of another, things are
> faster. So that to me says that its a server problem and not a
> network problem.
>
> Yes we multicast as well, but sometimes th
Ah... interesting. Thanks very much for your help guys.
Cheers
Ross
> -Original Message-
> From: David Prall [mailto:d...@dcptech.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 3:19 PM
> To: Ross Halliday; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Common uRPF setting on all interfaces
>
> Co
Correct. All uRPF has to be configured the same.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/7600/ios/12.2SXF/configuration/guide
/secure.pdf
Page 4 - Note - The most recently configured mode is automatically applied
to all ports configured for Unicast RPF check.
--
http://dcp.dcptech.com
> -Or
Hi Ross,
This is a 'well-known' limitation of uRPF checking on sup720. It's
documented here (3rd bullet):
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/configuration/guide/secure.html#wp1099693
Hope that helps,
Tim
At 12:04 PM 7/25/2011, Ross Halliday commented:
Hel
Hello list,
We recently did a forklift upgrade of a 6509 from a SUP2 unit to a SUP720-3B
box. At the same time I also plunked over a few VRFs which had been living on
an external router due to lack of VRF support on the SUP2s. To my surprise one
of the moved customers reported lack of Internet
My only comment here is that 12.4T became 15.0M.
Also they aren't really doing anything else for 12.4 mainline so you
are probably better off with 15.0M or 12.4.T code anyhow.
12.2SR (latest) is also pretty solid code.
15M is geared more towards your general purpose deployments, while SR
code is
Thanks guys, I will do some packet captures and see what it shows me.
I think the server might be over utilized as well, because if we are
imaging off of one server and then we tftp off of another, things are
faster. So that to me says that its a server problem and not a
network problem.
Yes we
Hi
Most of our 7206/G2 are running 12.4-24.T1
System restarted at 02:42:05 UTC Tue Jul 28 2009
System image file is "disk2:c7200p-spservicesk9-mz.124-24.T1.bin"
Some has also been upgraded to 15.0-1.M5 using advipservice (for OSPFv3
support)
System restarted at 12:03:27 cet Tue Jun 14 2011
Syst
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:42:39AM +1000, Phil Pierotti wrote:
> I was just wondering what the consensus recommended 12 dot something IOS is
> for L2TP/MPLS (L3VPN) use these days.
>
> No ATM, no fancy voice stuff, nothing NAT and barely any ACLs.
I'd go with "12.4 main" or "15.0 main".
12
Hi All,
I was just wondering what the consensus recommended 12 dot something IOS is
for L2TP/MPLS (L3VPN) use these days.
No ATM, no fancy voice stuff, nothing NAT and barely any ACLs.
--
two eyes to tease, an aargh ... an oh there's a pie in there somewhere
<
___
Hi Adnras,
Dne 20.7.2011 21:35, Tóth András napsal(a):
Hi Jiri,
When you mention logs are useless, do you mean you did not find
anything in the logs after logging on to the switch which freed up
some memory?
Yup, there were no signs of anything unusual in the log. logging
severity is set to
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 04:06:03PM -0500, Dan Letkeman wrote:
> I'm working on a test configuration for hsrp between two switches
> where i'm running eigrp, and I'm wondering if its best practice to
> leave the added successors in the route list?
We usually run HSRP/VRRP on "customer-facing"
On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 21:43 -0500, Dan Letkeman wrote:
> After about 12-15 machines start the image transfer the server gets
> over utilized and the tftp download from the server starts to take a
> lot longer on the rest of the machines that need to download the
> imaging software, not the image i
21 matches
Mail list logo
