You will need the ES/ES+ enhanced services cards to do what you want. Or
SIP/SPA type cards, but at this point ES is probably a cheaper option.
There are not really any good options or ways to fudge it with a 7600 with
the LAN type cards.
Unless you need the LAN cards specifically for the
On Nov 16, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Depends on hardware configuration - i.e. whether or not you're using DFCs or
not.
And on five-tuple diversity.
---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net //
Hi all , is i have the community set as 100 200 300
in the show ip bgp {prefix} output it will show in an ascending order , the
question can i reverse that ?
Thanks
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
On 16/11/2011 11:41, Mohammad Khalil wrote:
in the show ip bgp {prefix} output it will show in an ascending order ,
the question can i reverse that ?
No. The community order is irrelevant to BGP.
Nick
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
Thanks
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:56:20 +
From: n...@foobar.org
To: eng_m...@hotmail.com
CC: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP community
On 16/11/2011 11:41, Mohammad Khalil wrote:
in the show ip bgp {prefix} output it will show in an ascending order ,
the
On 7 Nov 2011, at 17:00, cisco-nsp-requ...@puck.nether.net wrote:
That sounds like an IOS bug.
What does sh idprom int Tex/y | inc endor say for one of the non-Cisco
parts, compared to a Cisco part?
Mystery solved: without going into the full long story, 75oC ambient
temperature in a
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
On 11/16/2011 05:08 AM, Joseph Jackson wrote:
Hey List,
I'm wanting to apply a policy-map to rate limit a port that is a
member of a vlan that is configured as a firewalled vlan. When I
apply the service-policy
DSCP 41 means CS4 or AF41 ?
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Hi,
Is it possible to make down ip eigrp routing protocol when ip sla icmp jitter
detect, let say, 200ms or 10% packet loss to other host in network.
Grzegorz Zapalski
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On 16/11/2011 15:22, Grzegorz Zapalski wrote:
Is it possible to make down ip eigrp routing protocol when ip sla icmp
jitter detect, let say, 200ms or 10% packet loss to other host in
network.
Would Performance Routing do what you're looking for?
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 05:44:48PM +0200, Mohammad Khalil wrote:
DSCP 41 means CS4 or AF41 ?
DSCP 41 isn't really used and doesn't make sense (last bit is tyically 0).
AF41 would be DSCP 34. CS4 would be DSCP 32. RFC 4594 has some good
guidelines
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 17:44 +0200, Mohammad Khalil wrote:
DSCP 41 means CS4 or AF41 ?
Neither as far as I know. CS4 is DSCP 32 and AF41 is DSCP 34.
It does not seem like DSCP 41 has any specific class definition, at
least not according to RFC 4594.
--
Peter
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Mohammad Khalil eng_m...@hotmail.com wrote:
DSCP 41 means CS4 or AF41 ?
A handy guide:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/datacenter/nexus1000/sw/4_0/qos/configuration/guide/qos_6dscp_val.html
-cjp
___
Thanks for the replies
That's what confused me because i review the table and there is nothing called
DSCP 41 !! or DSCP 31 !
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:28:25 -0600
From: r...@ferlie.org
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] DSCP
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 05:44:48PM +0200,
Hi,
I have a fairly simple branch network with a 2911 as the edge router
and some 3750s behind it.
The 2911 terminates an IPSec tunnel over to our DC and all the 3750s
use TACACS with AAA servers in the DC, so the TACACS traffic goes over
the IPSec tunnel.
I have recently decided to use IOS
As I stated in the original post.
This is based on my experience with standard web traffic.
Mack
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 2:48 AM
To:
Hi Guys - Just following up on this issue...Carrier is stating that they are
not filtering multicast(support case is still open, but we appear to be getting
nowhere)
If I ping 224.0.0.5 from R2, I do not get a response from R1 via the new link
- Also, debugging icmp on r1, I only see requests
On 11/16/11 3:28 PM, John Elliot wrote:
Hi Guys - Just following up on this issue...Carrier is stating that they
are not filtering multicast(support case is still open, but we appear to
be getting nowhere)
If I ping 224.0.0.5 from R2, I do not get a response from R1 via the
new link - Also,
On 11/16/11 3:28 PM, John Elliot wrote:
If I ping 224.0.0.5 from R2, I do not get a response from R1 via the
new link - Also, debugging icmp on r1, I only see requests from R2 via
the existing(working) link, so the multicast pings are not reaching R1
via the new link.
If you ping
I wanted to find out how some of you are handling customer interfaces,
specifically when giving a customer one IP address. How do you make sure
the customer is only getting bandwidth he/she is paying for?
Currently, we assign customers /29 subnet to their 802.1Q sub interface and
apply some
...(bug) while possible; I still think it is your *new* provider doing
something funky to multicast-macs; not multicast-ip.
./Randy
--- On Wed, 11/16/11, John Elliot johnellio...@hotmail.com wrote:
From: John Elliot johnellio...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] OSPF issue
To:
[Apologies if you've already seen this message in other forums.]
We'd be grateful if folks who've yet to do so would take a few minutes to
participate in the 2011 WISR opsec survey - responses will be tabulated on
Sunday, 20Nov11, and input from the operational community is greatly
22 matches
Mail list logo
