Re: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue

On 23/Nov/16 14:07, James Bensley wrote: > Yep. This is why I always use the control word. Turn it on and your > problem will probably go away. I know it's enabled by default in Junos. Mark. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

[c-nsp] 67xx cards and full tables

Hello, Is there anyone importing full table IPv4 and IPv6 in 6708 line cards? I am looking to see if any operational issues with installing full BGP table in a VRF both IPv4 and IPv6 in VRF from more than 2 BGP sources on 7600 router with RSP720-3CXL 4GB RP and 2GB SP memory. I also need some

Re: [c-nsp] Facebook User complaints

Samir Abid Al-mahdi via cisco-nsp wrote: > How are we supposed to answer such offical request as an ISP if the > complaints are without source ports. should be pretty obvious: this is not possible unless the court provides you with the tcp port numbers. Nick

Re: [c-nsp] Facebook User complaints

This may be a good case for IPv6. On 11/23/2016 07:29 PM, Samir Abid Al-mahdi via cisco-nsp wrote: How are we supposed to answer such offical request as an ISP if the complaints are without source ports. Best Regards ___ cisco-nsp mailing list

[c-nsp] Facebook User complaints

--- Begin Message --- Dear Experts, We as an ISP doing NAT logging for legal obligations and we are receiving complains from courts with our IP address being used by the attacker. however, our logging methods needs a source ports to trace the users behind this IP address. Are you aware of any

Re: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:04:35PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Simon Lockhart wrote: > > It looks like the Nexus 92160YC-X is spotting the 4 or 6 there, assuming > > it's > > an IPv4 or IPv6 header next (Wireshark makes exactly the same incorrect > > assumption!), trying to decode it, and

Re: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue

On 23/11/16 15:10, Nick Hilliard wrote: Phil Mayers wrote: The Broadcom chip in the x670 may lack the capability entirely, so it could be impossible; maybe someone on-list knows if that's the case for Trident2? x670 is trident2; x670-G2 is trident2+. There is documentation to suggest that

Re: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue

Hi, On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 03:52:35PM +, Phil Mayers wrote: > Interesting, maybe it is possible then. Well remembered re: BC chipsets; > the vendors love for playing secret squirrel with which exact merchant > silicon they use baffles me no end... Somewhat hard to explain double price if

Re: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue

Phil Mayers wrote: > The Broadcom chip in the x670 may lack the capability entirely, so it > could be impossible; maybe someone on-list knows if that's the case for > Trident2? x670 is trident2; x670-G2 is trident2+. There is documentation to suggest that control word is supported on the juniper

Re: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue

On 23/11/16 12:13, Simon Lockhart wrote: On Wed Nov 23, 2016 at 12:07:26PM +, James Bensley wrote: Yep. This is why I always use the control word. Turn it on and your problem will probably go away. If only. Extreme EXOS doesn't support control word :( (Or, at least, I've not found the

Re: [c-nsp] WiSM without WCS?

On 23/11/16 12:34, Gert Doering wrote: The basic idea sounds great, but the practical implementation by Cisco led us to avoid having different types of product (like, firewall, Agree with gert. This is a "good in theory, bad in practice" idea. Do not use service modules, and particularly

Re: [c-nsp] WiSM without WCS?

Hi, On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 02:25:44PM +0300, Samir Abid Al-mahdi wrote: > Please any support, if possible at least share your experience. "The 6500 business unit inside Cisco can not be trusted". Past experience shows that they are VERY keen to remove software support for 6500 service modules

Re: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue

On Wed Nov 23, 2016 at 12:07:26PM +, James Bensley wrote: > Yep. This is why I always use the control word. Turn it on and your > problem will probably go away. If only. Extreme EXOS doesn't support control word :( (Or, at least, I've not found the right knob to turn yet) Simon

Re: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue

On 23 November 2016 at 12:04, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Simon Lockhart wrote: >> It looks like the Nexus 92160YC-X is spotting the 4 or 6 there, assuming it's >> an IPv4 or IPv6 header next (Wireshark makes exactly the same incorrect >> assumption!), trying to decode it, and failing

Re: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue

Simon Lockhart wrote: > It looks like the Nexus 92160YC-X is spotting the 4 or 6 there, assuming it's > an IPv4 or IPv6 header next (Wireshark makes exactly the same incorrect > assumption!), trying to decode it, and failing (because it's actually an > Ethernet II header), and then fails to

Re: [c-nsp] Wierd MPLS/VPLS issue

On Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 03:40:05PM +, Simon Lockhart wrote: > To me, everything *looks* right, it's just that some VPLS traffic traversing > the new link gets lost. For those who are interested... Well, I finally got to the bottom of this, and have pushed it to Cisco TAC for a fix... This

Re: [c-nsp] Strange Routing..

Pretty sure ip classless is the default, it's not in the config, but if you type it in, it doesn't then show up in the config. Also looking in show run for the peering netblock only shows the interface ip config, and of course all the various peers as well in the bgp config. As I mentioned in

Re: [c-nsp] WiSM without WCS?

--- Begin Message --- Hi, Please any support, if possible at least share your experience. A Best Regards On 5 October 2016 at 21:13, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Dave McGuire wrote: > > Hi folks! I'm looking at whether or not

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS Suggestion on 7604 Router

On 13 November 2016 at 18:51, Lukas Tribus wrote: > Hello, > > >> We are going to deploy 7604 router in our network (replacing 7200 G2). > > I would strongly suggest against a 7600 deployment. Its EOL/EOS and its > extremely expensive if you buy from Cisco. > > The ASR9k