2014-11-26 21:11 GMT+01:00 Dumitru Ciobarcianu cisco-...@lnx.ro:
The vlan ids are present on the converter switch ?
No, and this is not really an option. I want the switch to act as a
tap, mirroring the traffic regardless of the vlans.
Alternatively you can set the incoming port as
This isn't something as simple as bring up another port on the
switch, is it?
The switch may be discarding the traffic because there is
nowhere to send it (the SPAN port may only work if the traffic
is traversing the switch).
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp
2014-11-27 7:06 GMT+01:00 Pierre Emeriaud petrus...@gmail.com:
2014-11-26 21:11 GMT+01:00 Dumitru Ciobarcianu cisco-...@lnx.ro:
The vlan ids are present on the converter switch ?
No, and this is not really an option. I want the switch to act as a
tap, mirroring the traffic regardless of the
On 11/27/2014 08:06 AM, Pierre Emeriaud wrote:
2014-11-26 21:11 GMT+01:00 Dumitru Ciobarcianu cisco-...@lnx.ro:
The vlan ids are present on the converter switch ?
No, and this is not really an option. I want the switch to act as a
tap, mirroring the traffic regardless of the vlans.
Then
Hello Victor
Seems to be some multicast receiving problem 224.0.0.5/6? Are there filters /
IGMP stuff?
What kind of L2 design do you have in the segment? Some years ago we had
problems with multicast and SDH MUX systems.
Regards Gregor
Good point, thank you. After looking at debug
Discussing a new architecture of DCI (Data Center Interconnection), Cisco
raccomends both ASR9k and 6807.
The architecture requested by the customer forecast MPLS/VPLS supported by DCI.
From pricing point of view there is a quite big difference (win 6807), from
feature point of view Cisco says
Hi Simon
can you detail more ASR9k can be more flexible on EoMPLS (VPLS) than 6807 ?
Regards
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:26:55 +
From: si...@slimey.org
To: dim0...@hotmail.com
CC: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR vs 6807
On Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 10:18:41AM +, R LAS
In simple terms (and I apologise if this is fixed in Sup2T, as most of my
experience has been on the Sup720), with the 6500/6800 platform, you can only
do port-to-port or subint-to-subint VPWS, but not port-to-subint (which you can
on the more capable boxes, or with the ES cards on the 6500/6800).
Friedrich, Gregor wrote:
Seems to be some multicast receiving problem 224.0.0.5/6?
Seems like it. The main engima is why only multicast packets with
src=10.65.127.246 are affected and not from other source addresses.
Packets from x.x.x.246 addresses in other networks also work without
On Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 10:18:41AM +, R LAS wrote:
Discussing a new architecture of DCI (Data Center Interconnection), Cisco
raccomends both ASR9k and 6807. The architecture requested by the customer
forecast MPLS/VPLS supported by DCI.
From pricing point of view there is a quite big
The 6800 is a l3 switch. The ASR9k is a full blown router.
If you need to connect to non Ethernet circuits you will need a router. If you
want real qos you will need a router.
How far are the DCs apart?
Inter dc l2 is never a great idea if it can be avoided.
You may also want to look at the
Sent from a mobile device
On 27 Nov 2014, at 21:26, Simon Lockhart si...@slimey.org wrote:
6807 has a lot of potential (880G per slot), but it's not supported by either
Supervisors or Linecards that are available today (current limit is 80G/slot).
Always love this statement - yes - you
Do you have control of the devices at each L2 hop? Can you run packet captures
and see where the hello is dropped?
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:08:45 +0600
From: v...@mpeks.tomsk.su
To: friedr...@pdv-sachsen.net
CC: vlaso...@sibptus.tomsk.ru; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp]
DCs are 40 km away...
QFX5100 is the competitor, but on the DC-LAN, not on the DCI
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR vs 6807
From: and...@2sheds.de
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 22:39:03 +1100
CC: si...@slimey.org; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
To: dim0...@hotmail.com
The 6800 is a l3 switch. The ASR9k
Lars Fenneberg wrote:
We are at a loss what could be blocking packets with this particular
src addr.
Are there any IP filters on the layer 2 side of this? Are you using CoPP and
the IP is denied there?
No. PASOLINK does not do IP filtering.
It can only do some Ethernet frame filtering,
Are there any IP filters on the layer 2 side of this? Are you using CoPP and
the IP is denied there?
No. PASOLINK does not do IP filtering.
It can only do some Ethernet frame filtering, like filtering out LLDP
or STP frames, but no such filters are even configured.
Just because its not
What should we recommend to our customers Maserati or Ferrari - they both have
a Ferrari engine inside though the price difference is huge.
These types of questions might seem simple but they rather invoke more
questions than answers...
I guess most of the times the decision factor is to get the
Disregarding price, the only real issue with the ASR9k platform is the
software upgrade procedure. *shudder*
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:37 PM, R LAS dim0...@hotmail.com wrote:
DCs are 40 km away...
QFX5100 is the competitor, but on the DC-LAN, not on the DCI
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR vs
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 03:47:35 PM Mattias
Gyllenvarg wrote:
Disregarding price, the only real issue with the ASR9k
platform is the software upgrade procedure. *shudder*
The promise was that that would go away with IOS XR 5 and
later. Of course, I was not naive to believe it :-).
Hi Simon,
you can also do port-to-subint on the Sup720 using ethernet interworking:
one end:
interface TenGigabitEthernet3/2
xconnect y.y.y.y 1 encapsulation mpls
end
the other:
interface TenGigabitEthernet4/2.2010
encapsulation dot1Q 2010
xconnect x.x.x.x 1 pw-class atom-eth-iw
end
The
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 01:30:00PM +, Vitkovský Adam wrote:
What should we recommend to our customers Maserati or Ferrari - they both
have a Ferrari engine inside though the price difference is huge.
Well, as the underlying architecture of ASR9k and 6807/6500 is way
different (NPU vs.
Hi Gert,
From: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@greenie.muc.de]
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 3:27 PM
What should we recommend to our customers Maserati or Ferrari - they
both have a Ferrari engine inside though the price difference is huge.
Well, as the underlying architecture of ASR9k and
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Simon Lockhart wrote:
In simple terms (and I apologise if this is fixed in Sup2T, as most of my
experience has been on the Sup720), with the 6500/6800 platform, you can only
do port-to-port or subint-to-subint VPWS, but not port-to-subint (which you can
on the more capable
23 matches
Mail list logo
