On 5/1/17 7:24 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Clearly home users aren't driving 10GE, 100GE, 400GE demand, and I
> don't anticipate this changing soon. Perhaps vendors still think
> market is same as it was 5-10 years ago, where everyone wanted faster
> connection on every cycle, but we're now in era wh
On 5/1/17 7:24 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Warning largely content free pondering follows.
>
> This is not XR specific, market is no longer driven by service
> providers/access networks, but by content networks. And content
> networks want ever faster interfaces in ever denser form factor.
> 1GE is g
On 4/28/17 4:54 PM, Dhamija Amit via cisco-nsp wrote:
> Hi
> I am testing the feature BGP-ORR to have a centralized Route Reflectors in
> our network.
> The feature works well and it ensures optimal routing to the nearest clients.
> I have some concerns on the scaling of this feature, with aro
On 4/26/17 9:23 AM, George Giannousopoulos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Concerning IOS-XR on ASR-900 series, during a recent meeting with Cisco we
> were told that it's coming with RSP4..
> Haven't heard anything for the ASR920 though..
Personally, I'd still prefer IOS XE on the ASR920. IOS XR is a little
On 4/25/17 8:22 AM, Mattias Gyllenvarg wrote:
> Perhaps it will take the place of the ME3800X?
The ME3800X still has larger resources than an ME3600X, which is on par
with the ASR920.
I suspect a newer ASR9x0 will replace the ME3800X.
Mark.
___
cisc
Hi,
Christopher Werny wrote:
> which code version are you currently running?
The WiSM2 runs currently 8.0.121.0 as do the two WLC5508s we have.
Strangely, we have received no complaints from people who have been
connected to the two latter ones. The configurations are mostly
identical.
Unfortu
Hi all
I have a problem with a multi vrf where I ‘we imported routes from other
vrf’s.
I have an import map on the shared vrf to select the routes from other
vrf’s that we want imported.
Now I need to send a list of prefixes to an external backup provider
from this vrf via bgp peering.
I
On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 19:23 +0200, james list wrote:
> I tried the port-security feature with a fake mac address to see what
> happens, port got "not connect" and I'm not able to recover.
>
> Could it be the device connected went in the same status ? It's an
> old server...
>
> Any idea is apprec
> 2017-05-23 17:01 GMT+02:00 Peter Rathlev :
> > Maybe "switchport port-security" with static addresses will do what
> > you want?
On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 17:33 +0200, james list wrote:
> it seems fine, do you have an idea if it's possible to use the mask
> for the mac ?
>
> Something like:
>
> ma
I tried the port-security feature with a fake mac address to see what
happens, port got "not connect" and I'm not able to recover.
Could it be the device connected went in the same status ? It's an old
server...
Any idea is appreciated.
Cheers
James
2017-05-23 17:01 GMT+02:00 Peter Rathlev :
Hi
it seems fine, do you have an idea if it's possible to use the mask for the
mac ?
Something like:
mac access-list extended secure-mac
permit 40aa.zz00. .00ff. any
It seems I've to list all the mac address and is not possible to use a mask.
Cheers
2017-05-23 17:01 GMT+02:00 Pete
On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 15:22 +0200, james list wrote:
> I’ve a customer switch C3750 (12.2(35)), is there a way to permit on
> a specific port only a group of mac address which could generate
> traffic towards the switch ?
>
> I’ve tried mac acl but I do not get the expected result.
MAC ACL only f
Dear experts,
I’ve a customer switch C3750 (12.2(35)), is there a way to permit on a
specific port only a group of mac address which could generate traffic
towards the switch ?
I’ve tried mac acl but I do not get the expected result.
Any idea, example or www reference is appreciated.
Thanks in
Rolf Hanßen wrote:
> I just tried to get VRRP + IPv6 running on a Sup2T with 15.1(2)SY1.
> I enabled VRRPv3 and it works at least for IPv4.
Yeah, this caught me too. The primary ipv6 address for a vrrpv3 needs
to be an ipv6 link-local address:
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/i
Hi,
which code version are you currently running? I have a similar setup where I
get rid of all the link local multicast packets (mDNS/LLMNR etc.) as we do
not have any use case for them. The IPv6 (and IPv4) ACL is working fine. The
only difference to the configuration example is that I have bound
Hi,
Has anyone managed to get IPv6 ACLs working on WiSM/WLC? I followed the
instruction described here:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/wireless/aironet-1100-series-access-point/113443-cuwn-apple-bonjour-dg-00.html#block
but I wasn't able to get a working setup.
My aim is to prevent
On 23 May 2017 at 13:06, wrote:
> Router listening for all IS m-cast MAC addresses on all interfaces rather
> than solely on interfaces actually configured with ISIS seems like a bug.
Not all HW support per-port punt-masks. So if you have to punt ISIS
frames on one interface, you may need to p
> Saku Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 10:11 AM
>
> On 23 May 2017 at 12:00, wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> > Regarding OSPF,
> > Best security is to use it solely for routing PE loopbacks (i.e. no
> > connectivity outside the core).
>
> But because it's IP, you might receive sp
On 23 May 2017 at 12:00, wrote:
Hey,
> Regarding OSPF,
> Best security is to use it solely for routing PE loopbacks (i.e. no
> connectivity outside the core).
But because it's IP, you might receive spooffed packet further down
the line and believe you received it from far-end. So OP's question
> CiscoNSP List
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 7:45 AM
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Just doing a bit of a refresh of our current bgp+ospf templates to ensure
> they are inline with todays "best pracitse"
>
> (I have googled this, but majority of the exmaples are from circa 2012 or
> earlierso hoping
20 matches
Mail list logo
