;)
I guess the answer quotidian be 'when you want to' . There will always be
legacy devices out there that people want to keep and won't do 5GHz It
will be down to you when you turn of 2.4GHz support.a decision bases in
support costs/overhead. I guess you already disable 802.11b? Are
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Scott Voll wrote:
> Not talking pie in the sky but reality. when do you think we will be
> able to turn off 2.4ghz wifi radios? we currently have about 50/50 5ghz vs
> 2.4ghz.
>
> What do you think? 18 months?
When are manufacturers going to stop making 2.4 G
Not talking pie in the sky but reality. when do you think we will be
able to turn off 2.4ghz wifi radios? we currently have about 50/50 5ghz vs
2.4ghz.
What do you think? 18 months?
TIA
Scott
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
At 10:17 AM 2/3/2015 Tuesday, Tim Stevenson quipped:
Hi Brian, please see inline below:
At 09:06 AM 2/3/2015 Tuesday, Brian Christopher Raaen quipped:
I was doing some research and found the Nexus listed a limit of 23 entries
for PBR.
This is a limit on number of PBR route-map sequences. E
Hi Brian, please see inline below:
At 09:06 AM 2/3/2015 Tuesday, Brian Christopher Raaen quipped:
I was doing some research and found the Nexus listed a limit of 23 entries
for PBR.
This is a limit on number of PBR route-map sequences. Each sequence
can have a match statement pointing to an
I was doing some research and found the Nexus listed a limit of 23 entries
for PBR. I have some situations that require source based routing for more
than that many pairings(more like 200-300). Does this mean I will need to
look for a solution other than a Nexus 7k or am I misunderstanding what
t
Hi allI have ASR9k running CGN NAT44 and I need to graph some outputsFirst ,
how to pull a specific output if it has no OID ? and Does Cisco has OIDs for
ASR9k ISM ?
Thanks
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.n
> Its most certainly not. If you neither know the exact configuration of the
box, nor if the box is layer 2 or layer 3 switching, then you better not
partition the tcam for a specific purpose.
> Check logging, check your routing table. If you have a routing-table (aka
"ip routing" in the config),
> I can see "easier to use", but more flexibility - actually, no :-)
>
> It's hard to come up with a really useful example, but given that extended
> ACLs match both on prefix base and netmask with wildcards bits, this is
> more flexibility than you'll ever use without your brain blowing up.
>
> ac
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:48:35AM +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-02-03 at 09:30 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> > It's hard to come up with a really useful example, but given that extended
> > ACLs match both on prefix base and netmask with wildcards bits, this is
> > more flexibilit
On Tue, 2015-02-03 at 09:30 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> It's hard to come up with a really useful example, but given that extended
> ACLs match both on prefix base and netmask with wildcards bits, this is
> more flexibility than you'll ever use without your brain blowing up.
>
> access-list 100 p
Thanks Gert...really appreciate the explanation.
> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 09:35:37 +0100
> From: g...@greenie.muc.de
> To: cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com
> CC: g...@greenie.muc.de; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP/route-map/acl question/logic...
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 08:39:09AM +0100, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> > > route-map UPSTREAM_A_IN permit 10
> > > match ip address 98
> >
> > I would strongly suggest to use prefix-lists instead of access-lists, they
> > are
> > made on purpose to match prefixes, are a lot easier to use and provide
>
>
> > Thanks Lukas - Under what circumstances would you use an access-list
> > over a prefix-list?
>
> I would use an ACL when I need to match specific traffic (e.g. in an
> interface acl,
> firewall or nat context), as opposed to match specific routes (e.g. when
> configuring
> routing proto
Cheers Gert - Understand it now :)
The "continue" part (When to use/when not to use), I definitely need to read up
on!
Thanks again for all the replies.
> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 09:26:56 +0100
> From: g...@greenie.muc.de
> To: cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com
> CC: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject:
I've been in a similar situation before and my understanding is as follows.
If you use loopbacks for your LDP peering and have a default route in your
global table you will end up in a catch 22. Assume R1 and R2 . R1 is up and
connected to the rest of your domain and has a default route installe
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 07:32:43PM +1100, CiscoNSP List wrote:
> Cheers Gert - Understand it now :)
>
> The "continue" part (When to use/when not to use), I definitely need to read
> up on!
Basically, when you want to match+set something, and then continue processing
the route-map - while n
> Thanks Lukas - Under what circumstances would you use an access-list
> over a prefix-list?
I would use an ACL when I need to match specific traffic (e.g. in an interface
acl,
firewall or nat context), as opposed to match specific routes (e.g. when
configuring
routing protocols).
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 08:39:09AM +0100, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> > route-map UPSTREAM_A_IN permit 10
> > match ip address 98
>
> I would strongly suggest to use prefix-lists instead of access-lists, they are
> made on purpose to match prefixes, are a lot easier to use and provide
> much more f
> Yes, I used layer-2 template. I think it appropriated with the traffic. How
> could I know?
Its most certainly not. If you neither know the exact configuration of the
box, nor if the box is layer 2 or layer 3 switching, then you better not
partition the tcam for a specific purpose.
Check loggin
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 04:21:42PM +1100, CiscoNSP List wrote:
> route-map UPSTREAM_A_IN permit 10
> match ip address 98
> continue 20
> route-map UPSTREAM_A_IN permit 20
> set community 12345:1
>
> access-list 98 deny 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
> access-list 98 permit any
Why fiddle with
Thanks very much for the explanation(And examples), and yes, I agree it is a
tad counter-intuitive, hence my confusion why my first attempt was not working
as I expected it to (Or what I thought it logically should be doing!)
Cheers.
> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 10:08:23 +0200
> From: cisco-...@lnx
Thanks Lukas - Under what circumstances would you use an access-list over a
prefix-list?
Cheers.
> From: luky...@hotmail.com
> To: cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] BGP/route-map/acl question/logic...
> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:39:09 +0100
>
> > route
Thanks very much Karsten - So, matches from route-map section 10, are not
carried through to route-map section 20 (Section 20, basically allows all, and
just tags)?
> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:14:13 +0100
> From: karsten_thom...@linfre.de
> To: cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com
> CC: cisco-nsp@puck.neth
Hi,
route-maps are "first rule match" based.
The "permit any" in the acl will "match" the announcement and skip the
rest of the rules.
you need to do something like:
access-list 98 permit 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
(or better:
prefix-list PL-NAME permit 10.0.0.0/8
)
route-map UPSTREAM_A_IN *den
Hi,
Can you describe the traffic going through the switch?
I think l2 and l3 mpls VPN. I'm not sure. How could I know?
It looks like the CPU is getting pushed up due to IGMP snooping.
But the IGMPSN process is just about 10%.
Is there any possibility that you have the 'layer-2' SDM te
26 matches
Mail list logo
