On 21/08/11 3:39 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Sunday, August 21, 2011 08:28:22 AM John Elliot wrote:
Hi, Looking at the 1002's
We like the ASR1002's, but while we haven't used them in a
broadband aggregation role, we find the RP1 very slow,
particularly when saving configurations and such. But
Hi,
I got a 6506-E with a Sup7203BXL. Now I need to add some line cards to
this chassis. I got two options.
1. Install 2x WS-X6408A-GBIC that I still have lying around
2. Upgrade a WS-X6816-GBIC which I got (currently has a DFC3A) with a
DFC3BXL. I need to buy the DFC3BXL in this case.
The
You are referring to NPE-G2 (or 7201)
Arie
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Chuck Church
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 04:58
To: 'Chris Gotstein'; 'Joe Maimon'
Cc: 'cisco-nsp'
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 7206VXR
Research h-qos.
You have to make. Master service policy and apply shaping to it. Within
that policy you call your other qos service policy as a sub procedure
essentially.
On Aug 25, 2011 7:08 AM, Hendrik Kahmann hend...@kahmann.net wrote:
Hello!
I am just working on a QoS configuration on
Omar,
What traffic do you expect to be marked with EXP 6?
Do you have any transit traffic (i.e. traffic not originated by the
7600, but sent from a remote client), which is marked with some other
(non EXP=6,0) value?
Usually Prec 6 would be used for control traffic (routing protocols
etc), and
On 25/08/11 12:55, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:
Omar,
What traffic do you expect to be marked with EXP 6?
Do you have any transit traffic (i.e. traffic not originated by the
7600, but sent from a remote client), which is marked with some other
(non EXP=6,0) value?
Usually Prec 6 would be used
If you're still OK with reloading the box you could try 'show run all'
with both trains and compare those. It prints out the great deal of
defaults along with custom config and might give you a hint where to
look next.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Chris Gotstein ch...@uplogon.com wrote:
I was just checking the Cisco IOS Multiprotocol Label Switching Configuration
Guide, Release 15.0M.pdf
For the IETF standards based DS-TE -and kept reading further about the
Tunneling modes and that's where it got interesting
They are referring to Pipe mode as QOS Tunnel that goes form CE to CE
Indeed it could, but it's not a very common practice, and could also get
you into unexpected situations as many platforms have lots of default
behavior around Prec 6, assuming this is control traffic.
Arie
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
On 25/08/11 13:15, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:
Indeed it could, but it's not a very common practice, and could also get
you into unexpected situations as many platforms have lots of default
behavior around Prec 6, assuming this is control traffic.
Maybe so, but I think the OPs problem is that
Adam,
Not exactly... The CE is not using any labels...
The remote PE should signal an explicit NULL label to the penultimate P
router, so that the SP EXP marking would be sent using this label from
the P to the egress PE.
The egress PE then can use the incoming EXP marking to set the egress IP
Right that's how I understood it as well
It's just that document proposing the rather unusual way :)
adam
-Original Message-
From: Arie Vayner (avayner) [mailto:avay...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 2:36 PM
To: Vitkovsky, Adam; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp]
Am I missing something, or is OSPFv3 authentication (provided by ipsec,
since auth was removed from the protocol) not supported in any release for
any of cisco's switching platforms? i.e. 3560, 4900, 6500
Depending on how you search in feature navigator (the same feature appears
to be there
Well, actually the doc refers to a feature where you can move all
IP-DSCP-based classification off the PEs. So if you classify on the CE
and mark with the exp-null label, the ingress PE can use this marking
and doesn't need to configure any customer/IP-specific policies.
So I would argue that
Am I missing something, or is OSPFv3 authentication (provided by ipsec,
since auth was removed from the protocol) not supported in any release for
any of cisco's switching platforms? i.e. 3560, 4900, 6500
Depending on how you search in feature navigator (the same feature appears
to be
Here is the paper:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps708/white_p
aper_c11_538840.html
Cheers.
---
Leonardo,
Thank you for your answer, there is enable MPLS between CRS and 7600.
however, the PFC used is PFC3B. please do you have any doc regarding:
Moreover only
Hey Jay,
Yeah, our vendor came back with crazy costs (in my mind), I was hoping for a
smaller cost for the SSM security updates.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Jay Nakamura zeusda...@gmail.com wrote:
Ha! I am going through service contract hell for AIP-SSM-10 myself.
Best thing to do is
On Thursday, August 25, 2011 12:44:00 AM Chris Gotstein
wrote:
Are you running 15.0 or 12.2SRE?
SRE4.
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On Thursday, August 25, 2011 09:16:03 PM Jon Lewis wrote:
you get different lists of supported platforms, but both
are pretty small and lack any of the gear I'm interested
in. Is everyone using/moving to ISIS?...or just doing
OSPFv3 without authentication?
IS-IS here with HMAC MD5
OSPFv3 uses primarily local multicast and link local addresses for
communications which are not routable.
This significantly reduces the exposure to attack.
Blocking OSPF and other IGP protocols at your border is still a good idea (even
for v4).
Mack
-Original Message-
From:
Hi,
nobody an idea about this ?
Cannot be i am the first one trying to run/built such setup or migrating
from a platform that can do it. ;)
kind regards
Rolf
Hello,
I am quite new to Cisco and look for some configuration help.
We used Foundry last 5 years and now started to add/integrate
Arie,
Indeed we have many VLANs and each VLAN should be marked with different EXP
bits. I only copy a specific VLAN. The idea is don't trust in the source and
remark with specific EXP bits to the upstream, the PE-P is mpls enabled.
Anyway it's correct I have transit traffic originated by other
Hello,
that is why I ask if there is an alternative for this card. ;)
But the other questions stay the same as I could use the WS-X6724-SFP +
copper SFP.
The article describes what I found (i.e. the switchport mode
dot1q-tunnel command) but not how to configure the vlan-id that will be
used on
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 23:37 +0200, Rolf Hanßen wrote:
nobody an idea about this ?
Cannot be i am the first one trying to run/built such setup or migrating
from a platform that can do it. ;)
Okay then, I'll bite. :-)
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 18:46 +0200, Rolf Hanßen wrote:
All I can find is
Rolf wrote (in short):
switchport mode dot1q-tunnel
When trying to set the above commands I get that error:
Gi4/48 doesn't support 802.1q tunneling.
My linecard is a WS-X6548-GE-TX, does that mean I cannot use QinQ here or
is there another way ?
Same config on a WS-X6724-SFP is accepted.
25 matches
Mail list logo
