Re: [c-nsp] EX2200 and 3550

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:58 PM, harbor235 wrote: > Has anyone connected a Juniper EX series switch with a Cisco switch (I have > a 3550)? > > Do you use a standard crossover cable? MDIX? the EX2200 has MDIX ports, so you can use whatever cable you have available. > > Any Layer 2 issues with RST

Re: [c-nsp] Copper SFP with ME3600X

Ahhh interesting. So it looks like the GLC-T is actually NOT supported on those two SFP ports according to that matrix. BTW, this switch's client ports are copper 10/100/1000 RJ-45 so no SFP is required on them. Looks like this particular model number only supports the fiber based SFPs. Th

Re: [c-nsp] Copper SFP with ME3600X

GLC-T does not seem to be supported in the SFP+ port, only supported in the client ports. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/transceiver_modules/compatibility/matrix/OL_6981.pdf If you move the SFP to a client port, does it work? Andras On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Lobo wro

Re: [c-nsp] Copper SFP with ME3600X

On 12/10/2012 08:23 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: On 10/12/2012 19:12, Lobo wrote: Hi everyone. Been having a hard time trying to get a copper SFP to work on our ME-3600X-24TS-Ms. According to Cisco documentation, the GLC-T SFP is supposed to be supported on one of the fiber ports. However every Ci

Re: [c-nsp] Copper SFP with ME3600X

Normally I would agree with this command but it's not supported. The only "speed" command is nonegotiate and it doesn't make a difference when plugging the SFP in. Jose On 12/10/2012 2:40 PM, Tóth András wrote: Given that this is a 1G in a 10G port, you might need to add "speed 1000" to the

Re: [c-nsp] Copper SFP with ME3600X

Given that this is a 1G in a 10G port, you might need to add "speed 1000" to the interface config? Best regards, Andras On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Lobo wrote: > Hi everyone. Been having a hard time trying to get a copper SFP to work > on our ME-3600X-24TS-Ms. According to Cisco documen

Re: [c-nsp] CDP interoperability

On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 19:42 +0100, Andriy Bilous wrote: > Seen the same with CDP on ISR G2 with 15.0M - they've sent CDP frames > in every subinterface. It IS annoying. I tried playing around a little and discovered that the neighbor will see all the subinterfaces regardless of their encapsulation

Re: [c-nsp] Copper SFP with ME3600X

On 10/12/2012 19:12, Lobo wrote: > Hi everyone. Been having a hard time trying to get a copper SFP to work on > our ME-3600X-24TS-Ms. According to Cisco documentation, the GLC-T SFP is > supposed to be supported on one of the fiber ports. However every Cisco SFP > we've tried always spits back an

Re: [c-nsp] Copper SFP with ME3600X

I used GLC-T's with no issues, but I have not tried them in a 10GigE interface, only the GigE interfaces.. Mike Bushard, Jr | Network Engineer IV | Arvig -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lobo Sent: Monday,

[c-nsp] Copper SFP with ME3600X

Hi everyone. Been having a hard time trying to get a copper SFP to work on our ME-3600X-24TS-Ms. According to Cisco documentation, the GLC-T SFP is supposed to be supported on one of the fiber ports. However every Cisco SFP we've tried always spits back an error message: Switch# *Dec 6 19:

Re: [c-nsp] CDP interoperability

Seen the same with CDP on ISR G2 with 15.0M - they've sent CDP frames in every subinterface. It IS annoying. Won't surprise me if that was an actual feature request to get something obscure and ugly working in CiscoWorks or Prime. =) On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote: > On M

Re: [c-nsp] redundant radius server config

Thanks, looks like the "radius-server timeout" options was what I was missing. On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Alberto Cruz wrote: > Hello Dan > > You need to adjust the following values: > Router(config)# radius-server retransmit > Specifies how many times the router transmits each RADIUS req

[c-nsp] EX2200 and 3550

Has anyone connected a Juniper EX series switch with a Cisco switch (I have a 3550)? Do you use a standard crossover cable? MDIX? Any Layer 2 issues with RSTP and PVST+? Any specific configuration required to make it work? Stability? thanks in advance, Mike __

Re: [c-nsp] CDP interoperability

On 10/12/12 16:57, Peter Rathlev wrote: On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 17:54 +0200, Saku Ytti wrote: Luckily I think Cisco won't tag LLDP so maybe you can migrate there. A Sup720 running SXI with subinterfaces will send LLDP frames in each VLAN it seems, or at least that's what a neighboring 3560 seems

[c-nsp] Multiple access lists for pppoe?

Hi, I was wondering if it was possible to have multiple access lists for PPPoE terminated subscribers? I have some generic access lists to filter out crap from home user networks and so forth, but in some other cases I may want to add some additional filtering rules on top of the generic lis

Re: [c-nsp] CDP interoperability

On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 17:54 +0200, Saku Ytti wrote: > Luckily I think Cisco won't tag LLDP so maybe you can migrate there. A Sup720 running SXI with subinterfaces will send LLDP frames in each VLAN it seems, or at least that's what a neighboring 3560 seems to think: Switch1#show lldp nei Capabi

Re: [c-nsp] CDP interoperability

> Cisco thinks - this is expected behavior. I believe it's the expected behavior that the XR box won't accept an arbitrary marked frame without any efp matching the designation adam ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.ne

Re: [c-nsp] CDP interoperability

On 10/12/12 15:48, harbor235 wrote: Aivars, Best practice would be to remove VLAN 1 from the list of trunked VLANs. Irrelevant. CDP still uses tag number "1", even if the vlan isn't on the trunk. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.ne

Re: [c-nsp] CDP interoperability

On (2012-12-10 17:39 +0200), Aivars wrote: > vlan native on a trunk port, CDPs are sent with dot1q tag "1". vlan > dot1q tag native will also do the same trick. > > What do you guys think? Is this a bug or a feature? Should it remain > as it is? I've always viewed it as bug. Luckily I th

Re: [c-nsp] CDP interoperability

On 10/12/12 15:39, Aivars wrote: Hi, I thought that CDP essence is to help understand what device you have at the other end of the wire no matter what. You just plug one Well... not really. For starters, if you have a non-CDP-aware layer2 device between 3 or more cisco devices, the w

Re: [c-nsp] CDP interoperability

Aivars, Best practice would be to remove VLAN 1 from the list of trunked VLANs. Mike On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Aivars wrote: > Hi, > > I thought that CDP essence is to help understand what device you > have at the other end of the wire no matter what. You just plug one > end

[c-nsp] CDP interoperability

Hi, I thought that CDP essence is to help understand what device you have at the other end of the wire no matter what. You just plug one end of the cable into one box and the other end into another and you get your CDP neighbors. Besides other side usage like in IP phone communication

Re: [c-nsp] redundant radius server config

Hello Dan You need to adjust the following values: Router(config)# radius-server retransmit Specifies how many times the router transmits each RADIUS request to the server before giving up (the default is 3). Router(config)# radius-server timeout Specifies for how many seconds a router waits f

Re: [c-nsp] Redistributing OSPF into another OSPF process

Redistribution of networks local to the router is a non-recursive process. static/connected->ospf1->ospf2 won't work, you need to redistribute them explicitly into each process: static->ospf1 and static->ospf2 in your case. On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Murat Kaipov wrote: > Hello guys. > >

Re: [c-nsp] Redistributing OSPF into another OSPF process

On (2012-12-10 17:41 +0400), Murat Kaipov wrote: I've not yet seen justified reason for multiple OSPF process, people try to use it like VRF or like BGP peer-group, but it does not work like that. It just adds confusion and complexity. Proper way to set preference between processes is to use admi

Re: [c-nsp] Multiple flow-masks

Hi, On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 02:15:17PM +, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > On Dec 10, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > > > For the Sup720, or only for the Sup2T? > > Certainly not for Sup720, due to EARL7 limitations. That's what they said about IPv4 per-interface as well, back in the SXE/

Re: [c-nsp] Redistributing OSPF into another OSPF process

I'm not sure what you'd like to accomplish with the below ospf config but it seems all wrong I don't see the point of no passive-interface cmd when the interface is not associated to any area In either process there are no interfaces associated to a particular area I'm surprised you see at least so

Re: [c-nsp] Multiple flow-masks

On Dec 10, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > For the Sup720, or only for the Sup2T? Certainly not for Sup720, due to EARL7 limitations. I'm pretty sure it can be for EARL8 in Sup2T. --- Roland Dobbins //

Re: [c-nsp] Multiple flow-masks

Gert, As far as I know it's not on the roadmap for Sup720 but will be available for Sup2T with Flexible Netflow. In Sup2T FNF you can also have per-interface flowmask for Netflow. Best regards, Andras On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 01:50

[c-nsp] Redistributing OSPF into another OSPF process

Hello guys. I have an issue on my ME3800 with redistributing ospf process into another ospf. Not all routes appears on second ospf process. This is my config: router ospf 1 router-id 172.24.203.241 no auto-cost area 197 stub redistribute static subnets route-map STATIC-OSPF1 redistribut

Re: [c-nsp] Multilink PPP over LNS and links that have different bandwidth

Thanks Antonio. We have already tried this command but it does not make any difference in how the packets arrive at the destination. It just guarantees the packet fragment leaves the egress port in a time that does not violate the maximum established delay. Alberto -Original Message-

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1000 and radius guided netflow

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 7:35 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote: > >> If you're using RADIUS, why not use the built-in accounting functionality to >> get the info you need for billing ? > > Sure - but there are benefits to using NetFlow which go far

Re: [c-nsp] Multiple flow-masks

Hi, On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 01:50:04PM +0100, Tóth András wrote: > The reason you start seeing a conflict as soon as you enable mls flow ipv6 > is that IPv6 Netflow can only be enabled globally, not per-interface. Which is actually an interesting topic on its own. It used to be that way for IPv

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1000 and radius guided netflow

On Dec 10, 2012, at 7:35 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote: > If you're using RADIUS, why not use the built-in accounting functionality to > get the info you need for billing ? Sure - but there are benefits to using NetFlow which go far beyond billing.

Re: [c-nsp] Multiple flow-masks

Robert, I was trying on 12.2(33)SXJ2 but that shouldn't cause a difference. I think you are not seeing the conflict because netflow (ip flow ingress) is not enabled on your interface now. The reason you start seeing a conflict as soon as you enable mls flow ipv6 is that IPv6 Netflow can only be e

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1000 and radius guided netflow

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Журавлев Евгений Алексеевич wrote: > Hi Roland! > > > >> > and the NF collector. >> >> Are you just collecting raw flows with nfdump or somesuch? Any halfway- >> decent *NIX box can collect relatively high flows-per-second. >> >> You're being unnecessarily cauti

Re: [c-nsp] X2 optics (Re: Making SUP720 cope better under BGP load)

On 12/10/2012 11:02 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: On 10/12/2012 06:56, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: It's because it's enterprise gear, and from what I'm told, enterprise has lovefest with multimode fiber and needs bulky optics to handle LX4 to get sufficient reach on their legacy cable plants. seems l

Re: [c-nsp] X2 optics (Re: Making SUP720 cope better under BGP load)

On 10/12/2012 06:56, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > It's because it's enterprise gear, and from what I'm told, enterprise has > lovefest with multimode fiber and needs bulky optics to handle LX4 to get > sufficient reach on their legacy cable plants. seems like a poor trade-off to me. You play the c

Re: [c-nsp] Multiple flow-masks

On Dec 8, 2012, at 9:50 PM, Robert Williams wrote: > Unfortunately we use Netflow for an automated system we have (it doesn't need > to accurately record everything, just the highest number of flows / packets > etc). So I cannot just remove it The problem is that you can't trust it to accurate

Re: [c-nsp] Multiple flow-masks

Hi Andras, Thanks for that – very strange as I do see different behaviour, specifically it works 100% fine with IPv4 NDE and my policy enabled. What IOS are you running? I’ve used that command and confirmed that I don’t see any conflicts unless the command mls flow ipv6 full is enabled. mls i

Re: [c-nsp] X2 optics (Re: Making SUP720 cope better under BGP load)

On 10 Dec 2012, at 07:46, Saku Ytti wrote: >> It's because it's enterprise gear, and from what I'm told, >> enterprise has lovefest with multimode fiber and needs bulky optics >> to handle LX4 to get sufficient reach on their legacy cable plants. > Can you name optic only available in X2 casing,

Re: [c-nsp] X2 optics (Re: Making SUP720 cope better under BGP load)

On (2012-12-10 10:19 +0100), Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > >Can you name optic only available in X2 casing, not XFP? I'd be > >surprised to find one. > > LX4. > > http://www.google.com/patents/US7325983 Unsure if someone is actually

Re: [c-nsp] xconnect on subinterfaces c1841 possible?

Hi, Perhaps MTU problem between your C1841 and the remote end. Best regards, Le 06/12/2012 20:59, Christopher Hunt a écrit : > Hello all, > I'm having some trouble getting xconnects to work on > subinterfaces. I have two back-to-back c1841s with a T1 between them, > both running c1841-advip

Re: [c-nsp] How to check total number of unique/distinct users passing through Cisco ASA 5505

Very Well Peter. Thank You. On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Peter Rathlev wrote: > On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 20:30 +, pamela pomary wrote: > > Interface inside: 1161 active, 3004 maximum active, 0 denied > > Interface outside: 29340 active, 102726 maximum active, 0 denied > > > > I want to beli

Re: [c-nsp] X2 optics (Re: Making SUP720 cope better under BGP load)

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Saku Ytti wrote: Can you name optic only available in X2 casing, not XFP? I'd be surprised to find one. LX4. It however also states that LRM is the replacement, but it only reaches 220 m instead of 300. --

Re: [c-nsp] BGP sanity check

Hi, On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 09:12:38AM +0100, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > If there's a need for R1 and R2 to exchange equal number of prefixes than > just enable "bgp advertise-best-external" on both routers #include (Not available on quite a number of IOS versions, 12.2SX* among them... but at le

Re: [c-nsp] BGP sanity check

Hi, On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 05:28:15PM -0500, Chuck Church wrote: > Thanks. I guess in my mind the numbers needed to add up more. Both routers > are taking a full table, which is more or less the same prefixes with > different path information.R2 claims it's sending about 412K to R1, yet > R

Re: [c-nsp] BGP sanity check

If there's a need for R1 and R2 to exchange equal number of prefixes than just enable "bgp advertise-best-external" on both routers adam -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Chuck Church Sent: Sunday, December 09