The ME3600X only supported H-VPLS initially.
Full VPLS support came after lots of kicking and screaming. Cisco had
initially left it only for the ME3800X, but the ME3600X got it soon
after launch.
Mark.
On 1/Apr/15 15:14, M K wrote:
>
> Thanks Mark
> But what do u mean by full VPLS support.?
> -
On 01/04/15 08:05, Michael Malitsky wrote:
> I need to change the public IP of my VPN headend, which will
> necessitate corresponding Peer IP changes on all N remote peers. We
> already have the new IP space, currently configured as a secondary
> address. Problem is that N-1 of the peers are comp
Hi Michael,
I don't know about the ability to provision IPSec on a secondary IP address on
the router, but given you could pick up another 2801 for about $100 why not
grab one, configure it up on your new IP address and cut things over in a more
controlled fashion. You can move one tunnel at a t
This is the worst day of the year on the internet :)
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Łukasz Bromirski
wrote:
>
> > On 01 Apr 2015, at 16:30, Joe Loiacono wrote:
> >
> > "cisco-nsp" wrote on 04/01/2015
> 09:04:04 AM:
> >
> > > From: Łukasz Bromirski
> >
> > > > One of the local data centres i
> On 01 Apr 2015, at 16:30, Joe Loiacono wrote:
>
> "cisco-nsp" wrote on 04/01/2015 09:04:04
> AM:
>
> > From: Łukasz Bromirski
>
> > > One of the local data centres is looking into this as a mechanism for
> > > doing
> > > remote power supply for some section of their data centres which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Prime Data Center Network Manager File Information Disclosure
Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20150401-dcnm
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2015 April 1 16:00 UTC (GMT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Multiple Vulnerabilities in Cisco Unity Connection
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20150401-cuc
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2015 April 1 16:00 UTC (GMT)
+-
Summary
===
Cisco
Hi Mark, Ulrik, MK,
This is the expected behaviour as you’ve said there is a limit of 26x VFI’s on
the ME3600X.
If you follow the link and scroll down a paragraph of two you can see the scale
of the platform for each of the different SDM templates that can be applied
based on the platform and
Greetings,
I need to change the public IP of my VPN headend, which will necessitate
corresponding Peer IP changes on all N remote peers. We already have the new
IP space, currently configured as a secondary address. Problem is that N-1 of
the peers are completely outside of our control, and s
"cisco-nsp" wrote on 04/01/2015
09:04:04 AM:
> From: Łukasz Bromirski
> > One of the local data centres is looking into this as a mechanism for
doing
> > remote power supply for some section of their data centres which have
> > inadequate input power supply. I'm interested to see how it will
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 02:18:28PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 01/04/2015 14:04, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
> > PoE over fibre? Nah, you must have had misunderstood the specs.
>
> actually the theory is sound. They're injecting at +70dBm per strand,
> which gives about 18kW power-over-fibre out
On 01/04/2015 14:04, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
> PoE over fibre? Nah, you must have had misunderstood the specs.
actually the theory is sound. They're injecting at +70dBm per strand,
which gives about 18kW power-over-fibre output per pair. Some of the staff
members have been complaining that their
Thanks MarkBut what do u mean by full VPLS support.?From: gunner_...@live.com
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net; ulrik.iv...@excanto.se
Subject: RE: Limited number of VFIs
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 00:12:57 +0300
Even with a different IOS image ? or template change ?
From: gunner_...@live.com
To: cis
Nick,
> On 01 Apr 2015, at 14:35, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> On 01/04/2015 08:38, Gert Doering wrote:
>> If I run a WS-X6148E-GE-45AT in reverse POE mode (feeding power into
>> the 6500), but do not use the ports for actual switching, will the line
>> card still require power?
>
> I've run this c
On 01/04/2015 08:38, Gert Doering wrote:
> If I run a WS-X6148E-GE-45AT in reverse POE mode (feeding power into
> the 6500), but do not use the ports for actual switching, will the line
> card still require power?
I've run this configuration in production on a number of occasions and it
works quit
hi,
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 03:16:01PM +0300, George Giannousopoulos wrote:
> What if a POE+ injector fails?
You have a good point here. I think I'll see that I install 2 extra
POE+ injectors, so I have N+2 redundancy!
thanks!
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
Hi Gert,
I have to admit your "workaround" came as a shock to me :)
I can't help you on that, but I really wonder..
Even if it eventually works, will you trust it on your production network?
Maybe it's ok for 1-2 days, but can you rely on that?
What if a POE+ injector fails?
Personally, in such
I think it could work if you could use ZR optics on the far end and use the
excess received power to drive the 6704-10GE line card directly.
Aled
On 1 April 2015 at 08:38, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> quick question, because I cannot find the answer on cisco.com.
>
> If I run a WS-X6148E-GE-45
Hi Gert,
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 09:38:45AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> quick question, because I cannot find the answer on cisco.com.
>
> If I run a WS-X6148E-GE-45AT in reverse POE mode (feeding power into
> the 6500), but do not use the ports for actual switching, will the line
> card still r
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 10:19:01AM +1100, CiscoNSP List wrote:
> Quick question (I hope!) - A customer has an RR that successfully
> peers/distributes routes to RR-clients in the same AS...they have
> added another "network", running a different AS, and have successfully
> peered to the RR(
Dear colleagues,
Thank you very much for your comments. I really appreciate it.
Someone has comments about the other questions regarding the SIP10?
Thank you very much.
Jordi.
> To: luk...@bromirski.net
> From: mark.ti...@seacom.mu
> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:52:55 +0200
> Subject: Re: [c-n
Hi,
quick question, because I cannot find the answer on cisco.com.
If I run a WS-X6148E-GE-45AT in reverse POE mode (feeding power into
the 6500), but do not use the ports for actual switching, will the line
card still require power?
Background: I urgently need a few 10GE ports in a location, an
22 matches
Mail list logo
