Hello,
Does anyone know of a tool to measure network throughput, but does not need
access to the network devices? Namely, a tool to be installed on a LAN, which
would measure the over throughput of the LAN and potentially the WAN circuit.
The big constraint is that access to the networking
On 11/09/12 12:54, Michael Vinogradsky wrote:
Hello, Does anyone know of a tool to measure network throughput, but
does not need access to the network devices? Namely, a tool to be
installed on a LAN, which would measure the over throughput of the
LAN and potentially the WAN circuit. The big
Hi Experts,
Any idea about the difference between Cisco and Juniper equipment?
In the Juniper box, by default can learn the ULA, GUA and Link-local IPv6
neighbor,
In the Cisco box, by default just can learn the GUA and Link-local IPv6
neighbor,
Below is the output captured.
xuhu1 show ipv6
Any idea about the difference between Cisco and Juniper equipment?
In the Juniper box, by default can learn the ULA, GUA and Link-local IPv6
neighbor,
In the Cisco box, by default just can learn the GUA and Link-local IPv6
neighbor,
I can't reproduce your results. In our lab the Cisco IOS
On 11/09/12 14:55, Xu Hu wrote:
Hi Experts,
Any idea about the difference between Cisco and Juniper equipment?
Enough with the cross-posting!
In the Juniper box, by default can learn the ULA, GUA and Link-local IPv6
neighbor,
In the Cisco box, by default just can learn the GUA and
Can share your configuration?
Thanks and regards,
Xu Hu
On 11 Sep, 2012, at 22:27, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Any idea about the difference between Cisco and Juniper equipment?
In the Juniper box, by default can learn the ULA, GUA and Link-local IPv6
neighbor,
In the Cisco box, by default
If I generate the traffic once a while, then stop, the neighbour will disappear
sometime later or not?
If I configure the GUA and ULA address for the same interface, then generate
the traffic, the router will learn both of the neighbours or just one of them?
Because in my lab, previous cannot
Can share your configuration?
Nothing special about it. IOS XR box:
interface GigabitEthernet0/5/0/2
mtu 4484
ipv4 address 172.17.9.1 255.255.255.0
ipv6 address fd00:8c0:3::31/124
negotiation auto
dampening
#show ipv6 nei
IPv6 Address Age Link-layer Addr
If I generate the traffic once a while, then stop, the neighbour will
disappear sometime later or not?
The IPv6 neighbor cache entry will indeed disappear. That's how it's
supposed to work...
If I configure the GUA and ULA address for the same interface, then generate
the traffic, the
On 11/09/12 15:56, Xu Hu wrote:
If I generate the traffic once a while, then stop, the neighbour will
disappear sometime later or not?
Yes. Neighbours will disappear after a short time.
If I configure the GUA and ULA address for the same interface, then
generate the traffic, the router will
Hi,
I have core routers that implements several VRF.
On theses VRF, I have several CPEs.
Currently I am using the CISCO-PING-MIB
(http://tools.cisco.com/Support/SNMP/do/BrowseMIB.do?local=enmibName=CISCO-PING-MIB)
to ping the routers using a central snmp station that is outside of all the
Hi,
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: martedì 11 settembre 2012 06:06
To: 'Cisco-nsp'
Subject: [c-nsp] cisco maximum rate-limit interfaces
Hi,
I have a 7201 running
Hi all,
I have an interesting question that I am going to be labing soon. Is it
possible to NAT a connect-source for a BGP session and still establish a
peering? Obviously this would also require a NATng of the BGP packets as the
connect-source wouldn't match what the BGP OPEN message is
I have core routers that implements several VRF. On theses VRF, I
have several CPEs.
I would like now to have a similar functionality to proxy a SNMP call
to a distant router on a VRF thru a core router routing this VRF.
I think there is no such functionality in Cisco nor Juniper. If I turn
Hello,
Had a buddy who said he could send us a 8/40. This long term would be
better than our 7200VXR routers. Thinking about a solution without having
to upgrade to ASR for now.
Want some thoughts on the following:
1. Need to be able to handle full 1 Gigabit of transit (and backup link of
On 9/11/12 4:08 PM, root net wrote:
Had a buddy who said he could send us a 8/40. This long term would be
better than our 7200VXR routers. Thinking about a solution without having
to upgrade to ASR for now.
Want some thoughts on the following:
1. Need to be able to handle full 1 Gigabit of
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Aled Morris al...@qix.co.uk wrote:
On 12 September 2012 00:08, root net rootne...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Had a buddy who said he could send us a 8/40. This long term would be
better than our 7200VXR routers. Thinking about a solution without having
to
A number of people have asked to see the ruleset, so I've posted it here:
http://www.cluebyfour.org/ipv6/
What I've posted is the IPv6 portion of the configuration for my test
zone.
jms
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
This is as much of a general query as anything else. I'm
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Pete Templin peteli...@templin.org wrote:
On 9/11/12 4:08 PM, root net wrote:
Had a buddy who said he could send us a 8/40. This long term would be
better than our 7200VXR routers. Thinking about a solution without having
to upgrade to ASR for now.
Want
19 matches
Mail list logo
