Re: [c-nsp] DWDM Passive or Active Multiplexing

Hi Josh, We run lots of passive CWDM and DWDM as well as DWDM ROADMs. If you're happy with passive in you current solution, I'd suggest staying passive. We have passive 10G CWDM and DWDM solutions running well over 30km. We have used the Cisco CWDM & EDWM solution - it is an easy way to get an

[c-nsp] DWDM Passive or Active Multiplexing

We are working with Cisco to replace our passive CWDM with DWDM ring network. The goal here is to upgrade 1G CWDM with 10G. The current CWDM ring with use of all (8) wavelengths within 30kms is working just fine. It's a passive solutions and I don's see any powering issues with it. When we upgrade

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 8 March 2016 at 11:02, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > Well this sounds like a perfect example of a regression bug, when fix of one > thing introduces another bug, > That's why I like to cherry pick SMUs related only to what I truly need to > fix. > If the SP has a fix for e.g. BGP EVPN and I'm not u

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

Hi, On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 09:27:43AM +, James Bensley wrote: > Well bit a rant from me there, sorry ;) > > This issue didn't show up in lab testing and we haven't been able to > replicate it (nor have TAC). It seems to be something about the > ordering of patching and that was the point I w

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 8 March 2016 at 09:02, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > Well this sounds like a perfect example of a regression bug, when fix of one > thing introduces another bug, Indeed a perfect example. For the record the umbrella SMU referenced is CSCun32418, the fix for CSCum71513 which is part of this umbrell

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 8 March 2016 at 07:49, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > I'm not exactly sure how that relates to patch ordering and SMUs, tbh - > this is just a bug (and an annoying one, and testing should have caught > it before it was ever shipped) - but "slapping on 4.3.4SP10, instead > of patching" would have

Re: [c-nsp] C3560X Layer 3 throughput

Hi Nick, > They do process, but only when IP routing is not enabled on the switch. Ah, right! It processes them when acting as a host. Makes sense :) Thanks! Sander signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ cisco-nsp m

Re: [c-nsp] C3560X Layer 3 throughput

They do process, but only when IP routing is not enabled on the switch. -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Sander Steffann Sent: 08 March 2016 08:53 To: Chuck Church Cc: Cisco Mailing list Subject: Re: [c-nsp] C3560X Layer 3 throughp

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

> James Bensley > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 10:05 PM > > On 5 March 2016 at 22:25, Saku Ytti wrote: > > If you can rewrite the function run-time, then you can force linear > > progression so if you want given fix on function Z, you also must walk > > all the earlier changes in order until you'r

Re: [c-nsp] C3560X Layer 3 throughput

Hi, > Op 7 mrt. 2016, om 14:41 heeft Chuck Church het > volgende geschreven: > > 'no ip redirects' doesn't stop the processing of redirects that are > received, it stops the sending of them. There must be another host that was > sending them that this 3560X was receiving. I thought that Cisco