Hi All,
Upgrade CEF and reload the router did fix the issue. Thank you all for your
support!
Regard,
Vannara
On Sunday, May 4, 2014, Chris Griffin cgrif...@flrnet.org wrote:
Yes, and be careful of CSCsq77464 if you have saved your config since the
exception...
Tnx
Chris
On 5/3/2014
Did you find anything else in the meanwhile ? What you found is potentially
catastrophic...
Thanks.
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP)
amsoa...@netcabo.pt
http://www.ccie18473.net
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
Hi Folks,
After upgrade/ first boot from 15.3(2)S2 to 15.4(2)S strange things started to
happen with interface descriptions.
Like when I delete interface configuration, the description still remains in
the show interface description output.
Or when I change description it's not reflected in
Hi,
I've not got any further with it I'm afraid, although I did find that a
service-policy applied on a physical interface 'does' correctly match and
police the traffic. However, it fails to work if you apply it to a vlan (or
CoPP, as per my original email).
So if policy is applied to:
CoPP
I can try it on our lab.
I need the exact IOS version and the module/submodule used as input interface.
Also, the method to simulate the high levels of BFD traffic.
Thanks.
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP)
amsoa...@netcabo.pt
http://www.ccie18473.net
-Original Message-
Thanks, and it is as well as a huge access-list of other things, but that
doesn't change the effect of ttl-exceeded packets not being translated via NAT
properly because the icmp error inspection seems broken. I didn't disclose
everything I'm permitting through the access-list. I was just
Hi all
I am simulating CsC using Cisco IOS XR (on GNS3)
The topology looks like below
R5 -- R1 -- XR1 -- R2 -- R3 -- R4 -- R6
I am using BGP as the PE-CE routing protocol in order to achieve connectivity
between R1 lo0 and R4 lo0 and it's done
Now , I have configured OSPF as the routing protocol
On Monday, April 28, 2014 07:25:27 PM Aaron wrote:
p.s. does anyone know if the bgp graceful-restart is
really necessary ? if so, why?
In my shiny new deployment, I'm considering turning off GR
if I do NSR. They are mutually exclusive.
I've been a die-hard GR customer for a while now, but
On Monday, April 28, 2014 07:25:27 PM Aaron wrote:
p.s. does anyone know if the bgp graceful-restart is
really necessary ? if so, why?
In my shiny new deployment, I'm considering turning off GR
if I do NSR. They are mutually exclusive.
I've been a die-hard GR customer for a while now, but
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:13:38 AM Daniel Suchy wrote:
For peering session with any ASN 65535 you can use
remote-as 23456 as workaround on any hardware. Of
course, there're reduced filtering capabilities.
Not to mention that any 32-bit ASN in the AS_PATH appears as
AS23456; so you
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 09:55:54 AM CiscoNSP List
wrote:
The 7200 wouldnt accept the AS, and while googling, I
read that the AS converted to asdot notation could be a
workaround
Even after you upgrade to an image that supports 32-bit
ASN's, avoid asdot notations. They just make AS_PATH
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 03:19:19 PM Mark Mason wrote:
Looking at some potential edge redesign options when
comparing 6880-X-XL [larger route table @ 2M IPv4]
ASR1004/1006 platforms. Thinking about leaving the edge
routers to ASR's (could be more than 4 carriers - 1 per
ASR) and then
On Friday, May 02, 2014 09:42:08 AM Tom Hill wrote:
b) I don't think VSS has ever been a good
design choice (engage flames)
Agree :-).
If anyone here can speak well of SDR's (Cisco) or Logical
Systems (Juniper), I'm all ears :-).
Fair point, VSS is a little different to router
On Monday, April 28, 2014 07:25:27 PM Aaron wrote:
p.s. does anyone know if the bgp graceful-restart is
really necessary ? if so, why?
In my shiny new deployment, I'm considering turning off GR
if I do NSR. They are mutually exclusive.
well, as I mentioned in an earlier thread: GR still
No. no ac's are active (up). There are 2 configured ac pw's in bridge
domain, but they are both down, and bvi remains up why ?
Copied from previous posting...
RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:9k#sh run l2v br gr v45
l2vpn
bridge group v45
bridge-domain v45
neighbor 10.101.12.250 pw-id 45
backup
Hi List,
we are running a lot of (three-digit) 3750 stacks that are showing a
strange phenomenon by and by. Meanwhile we have five affected switches that
had an uptime of almost two years and an old IOS 12.2(44)SE in common.
The first indication so far is, that we see
What does your MPLS config look like? You need /32 static routes on XR for
labelled next-hops in certain cases as it's not automatic.
In your topology, what is the customer PE and provider PEs? Does the XR box
have a valid labelled next-hop to the correct PE?
Thanks
Darren
Than it is a bug.
adam
-Original Message-
From: Aaron [mailto:aar...@gvtc.com]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 4:38 PM
To: Vitkovský Adam; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] bvi stays up even when no pw's are up in bridge-domain
- XR 4.1.2
No. no ac's are active (up).
Hi Bill,
I had attended a conference in Feb with a Cisco Engineer from the Singapore
presented a paper on flowspec. You might be interested.
https://conference.apnic.net/data/37/apricot-2014-wei-yin-scalable-ddos-mitigation-using-bgp-flowspec_1393312254.pdf
Regards
Amos Thong
-Original
Never seen it myself, but googling around brings up a few things.
Did this recently start? Any other switch on the same code having the same
issues or not? Generally if five different devices all start having the same
issue an external issue is to blame. Maybe your SNMP server is sending a
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:28:47AM +, Vitkovský Adam wrote:
Since these are going to perform L3 termination point for all the VLANs
there's no need for VSS and I think the better option is to keep two separate
brains.
adam
Given all the interesting failure modes I've personally
You didn't mention which line card models you were using and if dfcs are
installed.
One disadvantage of CoPP on the sup720 family is that it is dependent on the
incoming
line cards to rate limit in hardware. Once it hits the RP it is handled in
software.
So if the traffic is coming in multiple
Hi,
All cards have DFCs installed, there is a 3C on the 6708 and a 3B on the 6748.
Someone else is attempting to replicate my findings now to rule out any 'odd'
behaviour with the test rig I'm using here.
I'll update when more has been found out.
Cheers!
Robert Williams
Custodian Data
Please add VDC to the list of technologies that won't improve the scale
or reliability of your network...
(I'm still recovering from the N7K/NX-OS cool-aid hang-over.)
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Friday, May 02, 2014 09:42:08 AM Tom Hill wrote:
We had an interesting issue arise on Friday and I'm still wrestling with
it. The short story is that we have a 7600 with a lot of ACLs on it, some
of which are very long and most ACEs are port specific. This uses up a lot
of ACL TCAM LOUs, or logical objects. I didn't discover that until later,
On Monday, May 05, 2014 04:27:01 PM Tim Durack wrote:
Please add VDC to the list of technologies that won't
improve the scale or reliability of your network...
(I'm still recovering from the N7K/NX-OS cool-aid
hang-over.)
Yes, virtual chassis is another one I won't be spending any
brain
On Monday, May 05, 2014 04:38:39 PM Oliver Boehmer
(oboehmer) wrote:
well, as I mentioned in an earlier thread: GR still
serves as a fallback mechanism to NSR (in case something
goes wrong and the standby RP looses NSR sync), and it
will help non-NSR-neighbours to fall over gracefully. If
Obviously no love here for VSS etc
But how is any of this any different not only to other virtual technologies (be
they VLAN, MPLS, OTV etc) but to the code that you all rely on from cisco for
the other things that keep the network running (spanning tree, EIGRP, OSPF,
FIBs etc) ?
Surely if
Hi,
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 07:02:44PM +0100, Alan Buxey wrote:
Obviously no love here for VSS etc
But how is any of this any different not only to other virtual technologies
(be they VLAN, MPLS, OTV etc) but to the code that you all rely on from cisco
for the other things that keep the
On (2014-05-05 10:49 -0600), John Neiberger wrote:
Hi John,
My first thought was TCAM. I checked show platform hardware capacity acl
and saw that LOUdst was at 100% with the ACL applied, but it was at 81%
with the ACL removed.
Do any of you have any experience with this? What would be the
On Monday, May 05, 2014 08:02:44 PM Alan Buxey wrote:
But how is any of this any different not only to other
virtual technologies (be they VLAN, MPLS, OTV etc)...
Virtualization in the data plane is relatively simple. As
you say, VLAN's, MPLS, and even others like IP, DWDM, e.t.c.
Trying to
From my HTC Amaze 4G on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network
- Reply message -
From: cisco-nsp-requ...@puck.nether.net
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 138, Issue 10
Date: Mon, May 5, 2014 10:00 am
Send cisco-nsp mailing list submissions to
When LOUs are exhausted some ACLs with LOUs will get processed as if the port
specific portion did not exist.
This can cause all kinds of weirdness. Often it requires a router reboot to
fully correct TCAM and LOU overflows.
The solution is to pick a minimum set of port ranges that works for
On May 6, 2014, at 6:25 AM, Mack McBride mack.mcbr...@viawest.com wrote:
One other note is that the acl compiler will attempt to expand acls for range
commands provided there aren't
too many ports in the range. This can cause TCAM exhaustion rather than LOU
exhaustion.
sh fm sum has been
On 5/5/2014 11:10 AM, Darren O'Connor wrote:
Never seen it myself, but googling around brings up a few things.
Did this recently start? Any other switch on the same code having the same
issues or not? Generally if five different devices all start having the same
issue an external issue is
35 matches
Mail list logo
