Hi everybody!
I have a SCE8k platform and CM(sybase),SM,SCA bb and Insight Reporter ver
4.1
All works fine, but I have no idea how to make HTTP_TOP_DOMAINS (and other
http) and VIDEO* reports working.
Theese fields in database are empty, so I suppose, that a platform don't
send RDR's to CM, or CM
Hi everybody!
I have a SCE8k platform and CM(sybase),SM,SCA bb and Insight Reporter ver
4.1
All works fine, but I have no idea how to make HTTP_TOP_DOMAINS (and other
http) and VIDEO* reports working.
Theese fields in database are empty, so I suppose, that a platform don't
send RDR's to CM, or CM
On Monday, July 21, 2014 06:22:09 PM Euan Galloway wrote:
NMS that uses ifSpeed/ifHighSpeed (which gets set to the
value of bandwidth (where set)) as a sanity check for
impossibly high readings? Certainly that was my
justification for asking a vendor to not put junk values
in
Interesting enough regular mpls ping has no issue:
PE1#ping mpls ipv4 172.16.14.1/32 repeat 100
Sending 100, 100-byte MPLS Echos to 172.16.14.1/32,
timeout is 2 seconds, send interval is 0 msec:
Codes: '!' - success, 'Q' - request not sent, '.' - timeout,
'L' - labeled output interface,
I am having problems with the configuration of a PPPoE server with HSRP
interface.
The field is set correctly but after a while stops navigating
Do not know if it is possible to configure a PPPoE server through an HSRP
interface or am doing wrong.
Thank you very much for your
Hi folks,
Wouldn't there be an interest for a solid PE router in a small form chases that
could handle 80k ipv4 prefixes and 40k ipv6 prefixes?
And supports redundant RSPs redundant power and 6 slots for line-cards and
4x10GE ports per linecard?
Of course the later is possible with
Really to get over 20K prefixes in HW with Metro-E+MPLS features we all are
willing to install huge 10RU boxes almost as thick as high all around the
place?
That just doesn't sound right.
Or does it?
Juniper MX240, 5U. But definitely more expensive than metro/switch
class equipment.
I
When you buy Cisco, you get what you pay for.
I would recommend ASR9k instead of 900 as a bigger machine.
2014-07-22 14:08 GMT+02:00 Vitkovský Adam adam.vitkov...@swan.sk:
Hi folks,
Wouldn't there be an interest for a solid PE router in a small form chases
that could handle 80k ipv4
MX240 is too big however MX104 is exactly what I was talking about.
adam
-Original Message-
From: sth...@nethelp.no [mailto:sth...@nethelp.no]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 2:38 PM
To: Vitkovský Adam
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] why there are no plans for
MX240 is too big however MX104 is exactly what I was talking about.
MX104 is a very nice box, as long as you can live with its limited
CPU horsepower. We'll be installing several of them soon.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
___
From: sth...@nethelp.no [mailto:sth...@nethelp.no]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 3:21 PM
MX240 is too big however MX104 is exactly what I was talking about.
MX104 is a very nice box, as long as you can live with its limited CPU
horsepower. We'll be installing several of them soon.
May not have all of the SP features you need, but the C6880-X is an
interesting semi-fixed platform.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Vitkovský Adam adam.vitkov...@swan.sk
wrote:
From: sth...@nethelp.no [mailto:sth...@nethelp.no]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 3:21 PM
MX240 is too big
This C6880-X is a very interesting box, very powerful indeed.
The only drawback is that it doesn’t have redundant RSP/Sup however it can be
stacked together.
Would have to read through the documentation to find out about the MPLS
features’ availability.
Though the data-sheet claims full
Feature set is C6K/C76K 15.1SY. Full MPLS L3VPN. Also VPLS. Waiting to see
if PBB-EVPN arrives.
If deployed in pairs, redundant supervisor may not be an issue. I don't
find ISSU and stacking to be very successful with most platforms. Ymmv.
On Tuesday, July 22, 2014, Vitkovský Adam
Well I'm pretty annoyed by the asr903 limited CPU horsepower.
Reloading the box takes ages also saving config introduces a very 90's style
delay.
Does MX104 support LFA or rLFA please?
LFA yes. No rLFA support as far as I know.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Given the patterned packet loss, I would suspect some kind of rate limiting.
Where it is happening I cannot say. It could be built in to the pseudowire
code.
Mack McBride | Network Architect | ViaWest, Inc.
O: 720.891.2502 | mack.mcbr...@viawest.com | www.viawest.com | LinkedIn |
Twitter |
Hello all,
I have implemented two EEM Policies using TCL on a Cisco Catalyst 6500,
both of them running every X seconds. Now I am trying to find a way to
monitor the CPU and memory usage of these policies, to determine their
footprint.
I have found that the processes that spawn (EEM TCL Proc) can
On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 05:13:09 PM sth...@nethelp.no
wrote:
LFA yes. No rLFA support as far as I know.
None in general, in Junos (the way we know it in Cisco,
anyway).
In Junos, rLFA can be manually configured across a TE
tunnel, and running LFA on that tunnel. Not dynamic, but
achieves
On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 04:38:59 PM Tim Durack wrote:
Feature set is C6K/C76K 15.1SY. Full MPLS L3VPN. Also
VPLS. Waiting to see if PBB-EVPN arrives.
If deployed in pairs, redundant supervisor may not be an
issue. I don't find ISSU and stacking to be very
successful with most platforms.
19 matches
Mail list logo
