Gents,
Have anyone come across a script that could yield the IP address of a given
mac-address when invoked on a Layer 3 Router?
I would assume that you would have to select the given interface (as it could
be any interface) and the router should start arp-ing all hosts on a given
subnet return
Reset/reload of N5K is very fast right?
Regards,
Alexander Lim
On May 25, 2012, at 5:21 AM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 20:30:40 +, you wrote:
>
>> I'm wondering if anyone has any experience/tips/advice when running
>> Fibre Channel on the Nexus 5548UP platform.
>
On Thu, 24 May 2012 20:30:40 +, you wrote:
> I'm wondering if anyone has any experience/tips/advice when running
> Fibre Channel on the Nexus 5548UP platform.
Yeah, we have customers doing that and do that ourselves.
> I've done a little bit of research, and understand that the FC ports
> ha
Hello,
I'm wondering if anyone has any experience/tips/advice when running Fibre
Channel on the Nexus 5548UP platform. I've done a little bit of research, and
understand that the FC ports have to start at the back end of the chassis, and
that to switch a port from Ethernet mode over to FC mode,
No it's not compatible, there will be problems! Will work only with MSTP, but
MSTP is hard to manage: synchronize all VLANs, INSTANCES and Revisions on
all Switches ...
Important: test the MSTP before in a lab!
Gregor
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nethe
Seems like improved lexical parsing to me actually. Both these worked the
same way:
sh int | include "up|rate"
sh int | utility egrep "up|rate"
Where everything enclosed in the quotes is passed to the command.
You could also add a trailing space to "up" so that you don't match words
like "supresse
Hi John,
On Thu, 24 May 2012, John Neiberger wrote:
> Someone asked me how to do something very simple and I'm finding it
> very difficult! He wants to do a "show interface" command and show
> only lines with "up" or "rate" in it. In IOS, this was simply "show
> int | i up|rate". That second pipe
Think about the buffering on a chassis like a 7200 like this.
You have 2 buffers on input, the RX ring (a hardware buffer), and the
input queue (a software buffer)
A packet comes in on the wire, and goes into the RX ring. That generates
a CPU interrupt. The CPU needs to finish its current task th
show interfaces | include "(up|down)"
/F
On 24 May 2012 16:19, John Neiberger wrote:
> Someone asked me how to do something very simple and I'm finding it
> very difficult! He wants to do a "show interface" command and show
> only lines with "up" or "rate" in it. In IOS, this was simply "show
>
On Thu, 24 May 2012 08:19:40 -0600, you wrote:
> Someone asked me how to do something very simple and I'm finding it
> very difficult! He wants to do a "show interface" command and show
> only lines with "up" or "rate" in it.
Put your regex in quotes:
sh int | i "up|rate"
-A
Someone asked me how to do something very simple and I'm finding it
very difficult! He wants to do a "show interface" command and show
only lines with "up" or "rate" in it. In IOS, this was simply "show
int | i up|rate". That second pipe for OR does not seem to work in XR
and we can't figure out ho
On (2012-05-24 14:37 +0200), Gert Doering wrote:
> I do not run MST anywhere, so I'm not sure how portfast and MST interact.
MST with single instance is same as RSTP from this perspective. If you
don't configure non-MST participating port as edge port (or cisco term
portfast) then you are waiting
Hi,
> After the port-fast discussion back to your original question. The first
> thing to look is the interface controller (show controller , show ip
> interface) and the logging to make sure I don't have speed/duplex or
> flow-control problems.
router2#show controller
...
Interface GigabitEthern
Thank you All for your replies!
That I found in INTERNET:
"To allow Cisco switches running rapid PVST+ or PVST+ to form a common
spanning tree
with others switches running RSTP, MSTP, or STP, vlan1 (the native
VLAN) must be
configured as untagged on the Cisco ports connected to the others switches
Regarding that IPTV issue, there is a Cisco switch option to not flush IGMP
table mappings when a TCN goes out, that accomplishes the same thing as
portfast, but without the (slight) risk of using that:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst4500/12.2/31sga/configu
ration/guide/multi
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 02:54:03 PM Gert Doering wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, the other 3 GE ports are directly
> connected to the CPU on the SoC - so "no bus at all".
That's right.
> The difference would be "... if compared to a PA-GE
> sitting on the classic PCI bus".
Agree, but given the
Hi,
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 02:44:42PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Thursday, May 24, 2012 02:39:20 PM Gert Doering wrote:
>
> > Well, I'd interpret that as "it is not connected to the
> > PCI bus, so won't eat bandwidth points from there". Not
> > as "will do distributed anything".
>
> Right,
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 02:39:20 PM Gert Doering wrote:
> Well, I'd interpret that as "it is not connected to the
> PCI bus, so won't eat bandwidth points from there". Not
> as "will do distributed anything".
Right, that was my interpretation too, but for me, each port
performed the same, so
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 02:37:47 PM Gert Doering wrote:
> OTOH, if you connect switches with *RSTP* together, the
> links will be up and forwarding in very short time
> anyway, so portfast won't make much difference.
Aye - which is why we run RSTP everywhere we need STP
anyway.
Mark.
Ha! So that 1 port can do line rate to. the CPU? :)
And I can see getting that linerate out of the box. It's things like QoS and
Netflow that really have to involve the CPU much more than simple packet
forwarding.
Once you get most of those services established (such as ISIS) there's real
Hi,
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 02:30:59PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> > I recently had a similar issue with a 7201 (which is
> > effectively a NPE-G2). Keep in mind that a 7200 series
> > platform is 100% software-based.
>
> Except for the part where they said the 4th Gig-E port is a
> PCI-X connect
Hi,
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:38:49PM +0200, adam vitkovsky wrote:
> What do you think about enabling port-fast on trunks between switches that
> are connected in a star topology (no redundant links) and running MST
I do not run MST anywhere, so I'm not sure how portfast and MST interact.
OTOH,
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 02:19:39 PM Matlock, Kenneth L
wrote:
> I recently had a similar issue with a 7201 (which is
> effectively a NPE-G2). Keep in mind that a 7200 series
> platform is 100% software-based.
Except for the part where they said the 4th Gig-E port is a
PCI-X connection to the
Ahh, Netflow
I recently had a similar issue with a 7201 (which is effectively a NPE-G2).
Keep in mind that a 7200 series platform is 100% software-based.
And NPE-G2 is rated for 1024Mb/sec. This is aggregate throughput, meaning you
can do 1024mb/sec in one direction, or 512mb/sec each di
On 24.5.2012 09:28, "Saku Ytti" wrote:
>On (2012-05-24 10:56 +0200), Peter Rathlev wrote:
>
>> connecting to anything that does not create a L2 loop, i.e. a bridge. We
>> use Portfast and BPDU Guard on all links towards routers. That also
>
>This is incredibly dangerous. Leak one BPDU from one cu
On (2012-05-24 10:56 +0200), Peter Rathlev wrote:
> connecting to anything that does not create a L2 loop, i.e. a bridge. We
> use Portfast and BPDU Guard on all links towards routers. That also
This is incredibly dangerous. Leak one BPDU from one customer EVPN
somewhere, and all customers are do
Hi
After the port-fast discussion back to your original question. The first
thing to look is the interface controller (show controller , show ip
interface) and the logging to make sure I don't have speed/duplex or
flow-control problems.
Second you get "unknown protocol drops" this happens mostly
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 13:15 -0500, Chris Gotstein wrote:
> It's probably not going to address the overrun issue, but from a best
> practices stand point, it should not be enabled on interfaces that
> connected to other connected devices, ie a router or switch.
To recap what others have said: Por
On 05/24/2012 06:16 AM, David Farrell wrote:
On 23/05/2012 20:27, Phil Mayers wrote:
If you don't enable portfast, you have to suffer the STP state
transitions, which lead to delays in traffic forwarding after link-up.
I wondered what people's feelings/experiences were with respect to
completel
29 matches
Mail list logo
