[c-nsp] Dom and Non-Dom SFP Compatibility

Guys, Are there any known compatibility issues if I used a mixture of DOM and Non-DOM SFPS on either end of a fibre? I need to cross link an ASR with a 7200 and only have an SPF-GE-S and an GLC-SX-MM in stock. Am I likely to encounter any issues using different SFPs on each end? Cheers

Re: [c-nsp] Dom and Non-Dom SFP Compatibility

On (2012-07-09 12:24 +0100), Steve McCrory wrote: Are there any known compatibility issues if I used a mixture of DOM and Non-DOM SFPS on either end of a fibre? No. DDM/DOM is passive, link partner is unaware of this capability. -- ++ytti ___

Re: [c-nsp] Dom and Non-Dom SFP Compatibility

According to Cisco SE that I asked, both are compatible. But I haven't tried it myself. Regards, Alexander Lim On Jul 9, 2012, at 7:24 PM, Steve McCrory smccr...@gcicom.net wrote: Guys, Are there any known compatibility issues if I used a mixture of DOM and Non-DOM SFPS on either end

Re: [c-nsp] Dom and Non-Dom SFP Compatibility

I assumed as much but wanted to be 100% sure Thanks -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Saku Ytti Sent: 09 July 2012 12:56 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Dom and Non-Dom SFP Compatibility

[c-nsp] Revisiting TCAM carving on Engine 3 line cards

Hi all, as a follow-up to the thread about this topic last year[1], I wanted to ask with what memory configuration and carving options people are running their 4GE-SFP-LC (4 port Edge Engine3 Gigabit Ethernet) line cards these days. IPv4 routes keep on increasing quickly and IPv6 is picking up

Re: [c-nsp] Basic understanding of 6PE and 6VPE

I'm sure there were a lot of factors that influenced the decision on whether the support IPv6 natively or not Like how big was the network and how fast it needed to be up to speed with regards to IPv6 services -as well as expenses associated with the migration Merely by comparing the number of

[c-nsp] 7606 dropping BGP massively

Hi all, I've got a 7606 box with 12.2-33SRC on it, which out of the blue started dropping BGP sessions, to re-establish them a couple of seconds later. The load on the box is low, I have no errors on the interface through which the BGP peers are reached. Anyone with similar problems ? Regards,

Re: [c-nsp] Basic understanding of 6PE and 6VPE

router bgp 64512 vrf one address-family ipv6 unicast !!% 'BGP' detected the 'warning' condition 'The parent address family has not been initialized' Any idea why I'm getting this message? I want to run ipv6 in my pe-ce communications. I need to start up a bgp ipv6 session to the ce Trying

Re: [c-nsp] Basic understanding of 6PE and 6VPE

This seemed to do it... router bgp as-number address-family vpnv6 unicast http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios_xr_sw/iosxr_r3.8/mpls/configuration/guid e/gc38v3.html#wp1101782 -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On

[c-nsp] IOS 15.0 ipv6-related weirdness (fails to fallback to ipv4)

Hello, I have a 2800 router with IOS 15.0(1)M7 with no ipv6 connectivity. There are no ipv6 addresses configured on any interfaces and i've added: no ipv6 cef no ipv6 unicast-routing commands to config. Nonetheless when I try to ping google the following happens: c2800#ping google.com

[c-nsp] Overlapping Subnet Issue - Gateway IP Resides in Vendor Assigned Public IP Range

Hello, I'm trying to move to a new ISP. Our old one provided a T3 and an external IP range. The gateway IP they gave to us to assign to our router interface was on a different subnet than the external IPs they provided so having another interface dedicated to the external network was an easy

Re: [c-nsp] Overlapping Subnet Issue - Gateway IP Resides in Vendor Assigned Public IP Range

You could have your isp assign a transit ip subnet for the link and then out your ips internal your border router. Another thing you could do static nats if the first option isn't available. On Jul 9, 2012 7:50 PM, Spencer Barnes spen...@ceiva.com wrote: Hello, I'm trying to move to a new ISP.

Re: [c-nsp] Overlapping Subnet Issue - Gateway IP Resides in Vendor Assigned Public IP Range

On 7/9/12 3:13 PM, Spencer Barnes wrote: Hello, I'm trying to move to a new ISP. Our old one provided a T3 and an external IP range. The gateway IP they gave to us to assign to our router interface was on a different subnet than the external IPs they provided so having another

Re: [c-nsp] Overlapping Subnet Issue - Gateway IP Resides in Vendor Assigned Public IP Range

Spencer, You could have your isp assign a transit ip subnet for the link and then out your ips internal your border router. Another thing you could do static nats if the first option isn't available. On Jul 9, 2012 7:50 PM, Spencer Barnes spen...@ceiva.com wrote: Hello, [...] Our new ISP

Re: [c-nsp] Overlapping Subnet Issue - Gateway IP Resides in Vendor Assigned Public IP Range

I'm trying to avoid NAT. Could I assign say 10.0.128.69 255.255.255.252 to g0/1, then do several static routes? g0/0 (WAN) ip add 10.0.128.66 255.255.255.252 g0/1 (Public LAN) ip add 10.0.128.69 255.255.255.252 Ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.0.128.65 ip route 10.0.128.68 255.255.255.252

Re: [c-nsp] Overlapping Subnet Issue - Gateway IP Resides in Vendor Assigned Public IP Range

Don't do that to make your supplier's life easier. Ask them to assign a transit-network and forget about complicated setups like this - really. It saves you a lot of headaches (probably). Cheers Sascha On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Spencer Barnes wrote: I'm trying to avoid NAT. Could I assign say

Re: [c-nsp] IOS 15.0 ipv6-related weirdness (fails to fallback to ipv4)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael Ulitskiy wrote: Hello, I have a 2800 router with IOS 15.0(1)M7 with no ipv6 connectivity. There are no ipv6 addresses configured on any interfaces and i've added: no ipv6 cef no ipv6 unicast-routing commands to config.