Just an update to this - the "match protocol static" didnt fix the problem, but
adding "next-hop-self" to peer policy didI dont know if both were required
(Only had limited time to test)but static routes on the RR-client are now
working, as the next hop is now the loop of the rr-client.
Hi,
I was wondering if there is an snmp way to determine, from the
perspective of a cisco router such as the asr1000, how many and which
radius servers are responding to it? The router will log messages about
a dead server but if I could pick up on that via snmp it would be very
handy. I'
On 29/06/16 13:01, Christina Klam wrote:
> A few years back we moved to using twinax cables for our 10G uplinks in
> our DataCenters. We are now seeing input/output/CRC errors to many of
> our FEX and servers.
>
> Has anyone experienced twinax cables failing after only 2-3 years? If
> this is co
Thanks Oliver - Yes, we do have selective next-hop tracking...another list
member e-mailed me directly re this also...so statics need to be redistributed
with the loop of the rr-client it resides on
I do have redistribute static in bgp, and the loop range is in the PL for
redist staticand
Apologies Nick - All those commands where entered from the RR (I had that at
the top of output, but Ill be sure to add rr# / #rr-client in future)
rr-client#sh ip route xxx.xxx.79.106
Routing entry for xxx.xxx.79.104/30
Known via "connected", distance 0, metric 0 (connected, via interface)
R
Hi All
Is there someone that have seen this before.
We are running VSS-144 on Cisco6807 with sup2T-dfc4-a sup and sw 151-2.SY3.
We have had breakdown on to systems, with the same error messages.
%CPU_MONITOR-SW2-6-VSS_NOT_HEARD: CPU_MONITOR messages have not been heard for
30 seconds
The vss link
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Firepower System Software Static Credential Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20160629-fp
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2016 June 29 16:00 UTC (GMT)
+-
Summary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Prime Infrastructure and Evolved Programmable Network Manager
Authentication Bypass API Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20160629-piauthbypass
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2016 June 29 16:00 UTC (GMT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Prime Collaboration Provisioning Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
Authentication Bypass Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20160629-cpcpauthbypass
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2016 June 29 16:00 UTC (GMT
All,
A few years back we moved to using twinax cables for our 10G uplinks in
our DataCenters. We are now seeing input/output/CRC errors to many of
our FEX and servers.
Has anyone experienced twinax cables failing after only 2-3 years? If
this is common, the cost benefits of using twinax definit
Nick wrote:
> CiscoNSP List wrote:
> > Static route to that prefix on the RR-client, shows as "no best path"
> > as the 79.106 prefix is "inaccessible"? but as above, it is
> > accessible and I can ping it? (So the static is not advertised to any
> > other RR-clients):
>
> you'd make it a lot easi
CiscoNSP List wrote:
> Static route to that prefix on the RR-client, shows as "no best path"
> as the 79.106 prefix is "inaccessible"? but as above, it is
> accessible and I can ping it? (So the static is not advertised to any
> other RR-clients):
you'd make it a lot easier for people to see what
Hi Everyone,
Have an issue with an RR client and advertising its connected and static routes
to RR's (Note - From all other RR-clients, static and connected routes are
working fine)
The prefixes on the RR client are advertised, and I can reach the "connected"
prefix IP's, but a static route t
13 matches
Mail list logo
