On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Tim Durack wrote:
>
>> Question: when an optic is "shutdown" on a router, what is the state of
>> the transmitter?
>>
>> (10G DWDM SFP+ optic, EDFA amplified link etc...)
>>
>> --
>> Tim:>
>>
>
> To follow up o
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Scott Voll wrote:
I'm not really able to wrap my mind around what best practice would be.
Currently I have two exit points in my network. BGP / iBGP. Two Firewalls
behind those. Each Firewall has a IPv4 Class C to NAT to.
With publicly Routed IPv6 not nat'ing how do I s
Gert and Lee, your picking up what I'm putting down.
two geographically dispersed exit points with multiple internal dispersed
sites each with a /48. my over all is a /44. So from a BGP stand point
I'm announcing half my sites out one exit site and the other half out the
other. with iBGP annou
Is the server actually arped?
On 23 August 2016 at 16:12, Drew Weaver wrote:
> Hey guys!
>
> y.y.y.y is a server connected to the switch, tcam is fine as soon as I nulled
> that IP the switch came back to life.
>
> Thanks,
> -Drew
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...
Hey guys!
y.y.y.y is a server connected to the switch, tcam is fine as soon as I nulled
that IP the switch came back to life.
Thanks,
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...@foobar.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 8:48 AM
To: Drew Weaver
Cc: 'cisco-nsp@puck.nether
On 23 August 2016 at 15:48, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Hey,
> Is y.y.y.y the IP address of the router, or some downstream device? If
> it's the router, then you need to install copp and block or rate limit
> this to nothing at all. If it's a downstream box, this traffic should
> not be punted. Did
Drew Weaver wrote:
> Is this being punted because of the options field? Is there a best
> practice to limiting this kind of traffic? This is most likely some
> sort of DoS attack I would guess.
tcp options != ip options, which would probably be punted.
Is y.y.y.y the IP address of the router, or
Hi,
Had an issue earlier where a sup720 stopped responding to SNMP traffic, data
plane was fine.
When I did the span-the-rp dance, I saw this:
08:26:23.948884 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 113, id 766, offset 0, flags [none], proto TCP
(6), length 48)
x.x.x.x.3072 > y.y.y.y.80: Flags [S], cksum 0xa6af
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:54:04PM +0100, Tom Hill wrote:
> On 22/08/16 22:34, Gert Doering wrote:
> > Not if you NAT the IPv4 - the NAT part enforces symmetry.
> >
> > Not that I'm a big fan of NAT, but it has its uses :-)
>
> FHRPs aren't just for 'inside' interfaces. You do have to be sur
