On 12/07/2012 12:43 AM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
I don't have enough hard data yet to point any fingers, but what are
some of the more low-level items to look at on the 7206 and the
3560?
Tiny buffers on the 3x50 series causing drops during microbursts would
be something to look at. There's
Hi Juergen,
The dhcp vrf connected issue would have affected all users. But in my case,
users connecting via an autonomous access-point had no issue, connecting a
laptop directly to the router was also ok. Only when connecting via an AP
controlled by a WLC, the clients failed to get an IP
Hello folks,
We have Cisco ASA 5505 for Natting. We want to find total number of
unique/distinct concurrent users/ips going to the Internet.We can check
total number of NAT translations using sh xlate count. Does sh xlate count
represent total number of unique/distinct ips/users passing traffic
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 12:22 +, pamela pomary wrote:
How can I check total number of unique/distinct ips/users passing
traffic through Cisco ASA 5505.
Maybe show local-host brief | incl active, does what you need.
--
Peter
___
cisco-nsp mailing
All,
I'm currently using SUP720-3BXL's in my BGP border devices. Obviously the
SUP720 is not a particularly fast CPU, so it is pretty slow at bringing up a
lot of BGP sessions.
On one particular box, I've got 250 BGP neighbours - 1 full table transit, 2
IGP to route-reflectors, and the rest are
On 12/07/2012 7:36 am, Simon Lockhart wrote:
All,
I'm currently using SUP720-3BXL's in my BGP border devices.
Obviously the
SUP720 is not a particularly fast CPU, so it is pretty slow at
bringing up a
lot of BGP sessions.
Have you considered a CoPP policy to limit the rate of BGP
Hi Peter,
I've seen the same phenomenon on 12.2(50)SE3.
After upgrading to 12.2(55)SE6, OSPFv3 started to work(adjacency
FULL-FULL and stable)
However ping to ff02::5 still doesn't work.
regards,
Gabor
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Peter Subnovic
cnspmail...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:54:08AM -0500, Randy wrote:
Have you considered a CoPP policy to limit the rate of BGP convergence?
Not sure if it would help with so many peers but it might lessen the
pain on your 3 full tables.
No - I'm not doing any CoPP at the moment - but probably should.
Are
In the past my company has ran into these issues. We helped it some by
doing a hold-queue of 4096 on the interfaces and enabling jumbo frames
where possible.
It sounds like you're just running into a CPU issue though, which is one
reason we moved away from the 6500/7600 platforms for this use
Honestly I'd do your BGP peering with another platform at the scale you're
at. Since you're talking IXP do you really need forwarding plane and
control plane to match by letting the 65 do the customer peering?
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Chris Evans chrisccnpsp...@gmail.comwrote:
In the
hi
i have problem here with ping vrf, when i do ping vrf there is always
packet drop but when i ping using mpls it seems normal. is there some
strange here? i do tracing ping p2p and the result is ok too, but why if do
ping vrf always have a packet drop
JKT-PAJAK-C3750-UPE-01#ping vrf
Hi,
I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that you have VRF, try
removing the VRF configuration on both sides, then do a ping and compare
the results.
Do you see packet loss if traffic is transiting the device and not sent
between the switch and gateway, rather between two servers or
Thanks Brad and Peter,
I found the following details.
--
Interface inside: 1161 active, 3004 maximum active, 0 denied
Interface outside: 29340 active, 102726 maximum active, 0 denied
I want to believe '29340 active' on the outside interface represent total
number of concurrent
i have problem here with ping vrf, when i do ping vrf there is always
packet drop but when i ping using mpls it seems normal. is there some
strange here? i do tracing ping p2p and the result is ok too, but why if
do
ping vrf always have a packet drop
you might run into an ICMP rate limiter at
Hello everybody.
Somebody that can give me a clue or a document that I can read?
Thanks
Alberto
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Alberto Cruz
Sent: November-30-12 10:06 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
User complained his ipv6 gw on his vlan interface was down. On
checking, I couldn't ping it either from the local router.
This looked interesting to me on a sh ipv6 route for the gw IP (note
'backup from...' line):
rtr1.ash#sh ipv6 route x:x:x:6::1
Routing entry for x:x:x:6::/64
Known via
Hi Andras,
The topology like this JKT-PAJAK-C3750-UPE-01 - MPLS CLOUD
- JATENG-UNGARAN-R7606-NPE-01 - JATENG-GI.RAWALO-R3845-UPE-01
The ping is just from gateway vrf on pajak to gateway vrf on rawalo the
result is always have RTO on it. But ping vrf from pajak to ungaran the
result is OK. The
Hi Oliver,
The topology like this JKT-PAJAK-C3750-UPE-01 - MPLS CLOUD
- JATENG-UNGARAN-R7606-NPE-01 - JATENG-GI.RAWALO-R3845-UPE-01
The ping is just from gateway vrf on pajak to gateway vrf on rawalo the
result is always have RTO on it. But ping vrf from pajak to ungaran the
result is OK. The
Have you played with fragment delay ? The usage guidelines mentions the
different bandwidth links:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/dial/command/reference/dia_p2.html#wp101
3182
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP)
amsoa...@netcabo.pt
http://www.ccie18473.net
-Original
On 12/07/2012 5:57 pm, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Randy wrote:
User complained his ipv6 gw on his vlan interface was down. On
checking, I couldn't ping it either from the local router.
This looked interesting to me on a sh ipv6 route for the gw IP (note
'backup from...'
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Randy a...@djlab.com wrote:
On 12/07/2012 5:57 pm, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Randy wrote:
User complained his ipv6 gw on his vlan interface was down. On
checking, I couldn't ping it either from the local router.
This looked
21 matches
Mail list logo
