Re: [c-nsp] Rec for full-table multi-peer bgp router?

On 2016-11-30 20:42, Gert Doering wrote: This isn't exactly Cisco's sweet spot - "a few 10GE interfaces and full BGP" - you need "real router brains" but also "fast-ish and large-table forwarding engine". So, Cisco-wise, this is the thing, and the price hurts indeed if compared to something

Re: [c-nsp] Non-fatal interrupt FIB

2016-11-09 16:18 GMT+01:00 James Bensley : > > If the device is using ECC memory I would have expected the memory to > correct the error in hardware without and software input. Ho-hum... Nope, that is not how it normally works. Read 72-bit, ECC does it magic returning 64

Re: [c-nsp] Non-fatal interrupt FIB

Den 2016-11-08 kl. 19:26, skrev James Bensley: From what I could see the articles were suggesting there was a single bit error which was corrected due to the use of ECC memory (I guess this could throw an interrupt? not sure why though). Typically the interrupt handler does a read/write of

Re: [c-nsp] 3rd party dwdm 80km optics in asr 9001

what that really means. /Anders MVH / Regards Anders Löwinger Founder, Senior Consultant Abundo AB Murkelgränd 6 94471 Piteåhttp://abundo.se office: +46 911 400021 mobile: +46 72 206 0322 ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://p

Re: [c-nsp] Cat6500 VLAN cannot be assigned to a routed port sub-if?

On 2016-09-19 22:48, Peter Rathlev wrote: Just to be crystal clear: Sup2T hardware and software fully supports using same VLAN ID on different interfaces, and you can mix it with a SVI for good measure. Nick Cutting posted a configuration snippet that shows what can be done. Ok missed that,

Re: [c-nsp] Cat6500 VLAN cannot be assigned to a routed port sub-if?

On 2016-09-19 10:19, Gert Doering wrote: Things like that makes one wonder if Sup2T is intentionally trying to kill the platform... "too late, too limited, too stupid design decisions" (like, the new netflow implementation "with MAC addresses"). Sup2t has support in HW for using same VLAN-id

Re: [c-nsp] Cheap BGP router for ~20k prefixes

On 2015-05-02 13:08, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: Interesting idea, CSR1000v BW can go up to 10GE (license base upgrade) right? Can it handle QoS in any way? /Anders ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] IOS XRv in a virtual environment

On 2015-02-18 16:50, Aaron wrote: Now, question is, I tried to recreate this in a data center where my linux engineer created me a virtual pc machine running windows 7. I did all the same stuff, except now XRv crashes when trying to boot up. So, you have a virtual machine running win7, inside

Re: [c-nsp] Galvanic isolation for Ethernet?

On 2014-08-19 17:33, Victor Sudakov wrote: Last time I looked at a NIC (and the inside of a toasted Catalyst) I don't remember seeing any transformers. But probably I did not look well enough, or they do not look as a typical transformer. Do you care to show a picture please? It's probably a

Re: [c-nsp] ARP on ASR9k 4.3.2

On 2014-02-18 18:29, Mark Tinka wrote: were promised it will cut upgrade times from 2hrs to 30x minutes. I can't grasp why a SW upgrade should take even 30 minutes. Sounds broken, whatever Cisco says /Anders ___ cisco-nsp mailing list