> If you care about not having to download these images to
> your hotel room next network outage you have, I suggest you
> talk to your Cisco support reps now and/or open a tac case.
www.cisco.com is broken in so many ways, I've lost count... and
given up commenting on it. Those web-marketin
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 09:09 +0100, Vincent De Keyzer wrote:
> in the datasheet for the 4948 on CCO, I can't find a reference to auto
> MD. Can anybody help?
The 4948 does Auto-MDI/MDI-X.
> I have a device in the field (so not at hand), and I need to know
> whether I need to order cross cabling
> Does anyone know when IPv6 forwarding in hardware will be
> available on the 4500 platform or more specifically the 4507R.
AFAIK, it won't be available until Sup6-E.
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mai
> Stacking is nice with 802.3ad to provide first pop redundancy
> to servers.
Yeah, cross-stack EtherChannel from a server to a switch is
nice, but then typically to a TX switch, not fiber.
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https
>> WS-C3750G-12S-E = 12 k$
>> ME-3400G-12CS-A + Metro IP Access = 10 k$
>>
>> Then add the price of a RPS2300 to the 3750.
> You'd still be missing stackwise
Stacking IMO isn't so important. If you need that density, you'd
likely be looking at another platform anyway. But YMMV, of cause.
> and
> From what I know it is planned for the next SR release (SRC).
Yeah, I also heard Cobra for ACE, but then the last I heard was
that 'some service modules' might slip into Dragon... We'll see.
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
ht
>> ME-3400G-12CS ?
>> ME-4924-10GE ?
>> ME-C6524GS-8S ?
> Also all are more expensive than 3750.
Well, so is the 3750E, which you mentioned.
> 3400G actually only, if you want to do L3, if you do plain L2
> it's same cost.
Layer 2
WS-C3750G-12S-S = 8 k$
ME-3400G-12CS-A = 7 k$ (possibly add Met
> One last question then, what does "BGP stub mode" mean?
"Crippled".
The FWSM will advertise static and connected routes (so, no
redistribution) to a (single!) BGP router. It will not listen
to BGP updates.
Also, I think there's a license to using it.
-A
__
> Any suggestions, or should I forget about vlan mapping on
> 6148A?
I believe VLAN Tanslation isn't supported on the 6148A, and that
is supported by the fact that it's not in the list of supported
modules on http://tinyurl.com/2989d8
-A
___
cisco-nsp
> I have a user who claims that they've configured their PIX to
> take an action after it sees a certain number of rogue packets
> (ie, portscan). They claim that it's configured to stop all
> traffic after it sees 70 rogue packets from any one given IP.
>
> In my years of administrating PIXs I d
> I'm running c7600rsp72043-advipservicesk9-mz.122-33.SRB1 on a
> 7609-S with the RSP720 and PFC3C. Any idea when I'll see SLB
> support?
It is my understanding that there will never be IOS SLB on the
RSP720. Have you been told otherwise? It sure isn't supported
today, re. http://tinyurl.com/2f4
> I'm talking about situation where you solely/mostly need SFP
> ports, in 3750 you had the 12SFP model in 3550 you had to 10
> GBIC model. In 3750E, 3560E there is no such box anymore,
> effectively forcing you to buy bigger boxes just to get correct
> media out of them.
ME-3400G-12CS ?
ME-4924-
> Is [RIP] really not possible because of the multiple context
> feature being enabled?
No, it's not supported: http://tinyurl.com/29zbgp
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archi
>> Cisco should make at least one 1U switch with real dual power
>> built into the chassis or bring back a real RPS.
> Ah, but they *do* make such a switch. It's called the ME3400.
There's also the 3750 Metro, the Catalyst 4948 and the ME-4900.
-A
_
> Cisco CNS Network Registrar 6.1
> *vs.*
> Lucent VitalQIP - IP & Name Management
CNR is a fine DHCP server, but it's *just* a DHCP server.
VitalQIP is much more than a DHCP server. It's more of an
address management system, which includes a DHCP server.
-A
___
> [REP] has some but arguably not all the advantages of MRP or
> EAPS.
What's missing?
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> We have just deployed our wireless network with some Cisco
> access points. We would like access point act as dhcp relay
> for each configured ssid-vlan.
The access point (if 'fat') is just a bridge, so there's no
DHCP relay functionality available (or necessary). Use whatever
router you have in
> Interestingly enough, the same (exact, VLANs and all) setup
> is working between the 7200 and a 2600, with the only major
> difference I can see being the hardware platform and the IOS
> release.
IPSec on the 6500 is only supported for mangement traffic,
*unless* you have hardware assist for IPS
> Can anyone point me to a list of 7600 linecards that are
> supported (or not) by the RSP720 line?
First, see http://tinyurl.com/ysovqg for a list of hardware not
supported with 12.2 SR (which the RSP runs).
Then check out the RSP720 section (http://tinyurl.com/2fbtlg),
which says that *no* ser
> I have 6506 with sup720bxl3, and configure bridge between two
> SVI.
>
> bridge irb
IRB is not supported in 12.2SX. See http://tinyurl.com/2ef8nw
You can bridge non-routable protocols (A.K.A fallback-bridging)
between SVIs (A.K.A. VLAN interfaces), but it's done in software
on the MSFC, it do
> Does anyone have any new info on this, such as if the
> WS-X6748-SFP is now able to do 10/100/1000 with the GLC-T?
No, it's 1G only.
> Alternatively, are there non-Cisco RJ45 SFPs which can do
> 10/100 and can work with the WS-X6748-SFP?
No.
-A
_
> I have a very temporary need to bring up a 10g circuit
> between 2 cages in a data-center. I have some MMF in place I
> could use but the distance is over 300m so SX won't quite cut
> it.
10Gbase-LX4 will very likely work just fine, though unsupported.
Have you tried that?
-A
_
> There is a special case of EoMPLS being supported on an SVI
> for Sup720 which is referred to as mux-uni.
> [Defect URL converted to: http://tinyurl.com/hfb5p]
Are you able to (or will you be able to) do L3 sub-interfaces
with Mux-UNI instead of SVIs?
-A
___
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 14:35 -0700, Voll, Scott wrote:
> Not the SSL client but the IPSEC client.
There is no such thing as a 64-bit IPSec client for Windows and
I've been told there will be no such thing, and that Anyconnect
is the client moving forward.
Personally, I don't understand why SSL VPN
> Is NAT/PAT supported in transparent mode of FWSM 3.1.5 code?
No.
> If not, any near future release to have that feature?
It's in 3.2 today: http://tinyurl.com/yw5whv
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net
> s3550 #sh ip dhcp binding
Try 'sh ip dhcp snoop bind' instead.
> Is there a way to allow the relayed option82 packets through
> but to also enforce the snooping bindings so that any traffic
> that hasn't done a DHCP request (ie they have set a manual IP)
> will be discarded?
Look at IP Sourc
> 6708 is not a supported / working option on SRB 7600s,
> and I have been told will never be.
I've been told, 6708 will be supported in Cobra.
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> Anyone using 8.0 in production yet? Comments?
Since it's from 18-JUN, production-type experience should be
slim to none at this point.
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archi
> I am configuring stateful failover for IPSec on rtp03 and
> rtp04, but got the following error message, then I wondered
> if I can disable the crypto hardware.
What IOS version are you running? It needs to be fairly recent
for "Stateful Failover for IPSec" to be supported on the 3845.
I believe
> ...to me the rate limiting on the 3560/3750 is sort of
> pointless since it only works in one direction on an interface,
You can police inbound and shape outbound.
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mail
> What about 2960G vs 3560G ?
>
> Specs for both show 32Gbps fabric, 35.7 vs 38.7Mpps forwarding.
That's 32 Gbps marketing.
In reality the backplane is a 16 Gbps dual-rotating ring, so a
24-port switch may og may not be blocking, depending on your
traffic pattern.
> Are there any real differ
> Is this something that has changed recently or has sup-32
> always supported the sup-400.
Not "always". Sup32 has supported SIP-400 since SXF.
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-ns
> You're saying that gateways with proxy arp enabled will
> respond to ARP requests when the target IP is INSIDE the
> subnet?
That only happens when you have 'ip local-proxy-arp' configured.
> It should be apparent that's not the case, or nothing would
> work on that subnet ever.
If one was r
> Interestingly, Cisco's feature navigator doesn't list
> 12.2(33)SRB on the 7600 as supporting BFD 1.
IMO, Feature Navigator isn't worth the bandwidth for anything
related to hardware-forwarding platforms.
Unfortunately, *because* of Feature Navigator, the release notes
are also becoming less a
> Looking at the datasheet for the 1-port OC48 POS it
> says that the minimum release on the 7600 for that SPA is
> 12.2(33)SRA but in the hardware configuration docs for the
> SIP-400 it give some caveats for the OC48 SPA when running
> 12.2(18)SXF...
Never trust a data sheet.
Release Not
> The classic bus is 32Gbps (thats marketing for 16Gbps full
> duplex)
Actually, the classic bus is just that ... a bus.
It's not full duplex.
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
a
> At the sites where I need to tunnel from are currently 3550
> switches (and a few 3750's). What sort of GRE performance
> should I see from those?
GRE is not supported on the small Catalyst switches. It does
work (in some versions?) but only at low performance and with
high CPU utilization... A
> I'm looking for the inspect ipsec command on the FWSM. Any
> ideas? It's not in 3.1.1
It's not there yet. However, you can achieve more or less the
same thing with ACLs allowing ESP and/or AH traffic to/from the
addresses you need it for.
-A
___
c
> 1. Placement of FWSM with regard to MSFC, the pros and cons.
Check out the Data Center SRNDs at www.cisco.com/go/srnd
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.ne
> With the 6509's capablity to implement ACL's/VACL's in the PFC,
> what extra would a FWSM give us?
Stateful filtering and high-performance NAT comes to mind.
They'll also buy you some application intelligence (L5, as
you mentioned).
-A
___
cisco-nsp
> All HSRP groups between 2 7609 connected through 4 giga
> interfaces configured as trunk/layer 2 channel uses only
> one interface for HSRP hellos.
What EtherChannel load-distribution have you configured?
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list [EMAIL PROTEC
> If you want to prepare for what will be coming down the road
> you need to go with SRB.
I agree.
> A lot of customers are parked on 12.2(18)SXF because it is
> still being rebuilt.
A lot of customers are parked on SXF, because that's basically
the only thing there is. (The only software that s
> What version of FWSM matches up with the Pix / ASA 7.2 code
> train?
None of them completely matches it. 3.x comes close.
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nethe
> I see that the new RSP720 is not supported in the OSM-7609
> chassis and Cisco has released a new chassis that supports
> the RSP720 called the 7609-S.
The RSP720 is supported in the 7609 chassis and the 7609-S (and
several others), but not in the OSR-7609. That is correct.
> Anyone know the fu
> I was wondering if anyone had a list of LAN modules
> supported by the RSP720/SRB?
The 'Guide to Supported Hardware for Cisco 7600 Series Routers
with Cisco IOS Release 12.2SR' (http://tinyurl.com/qvk8s) is
supposed to be the authorative source.
However, the guide doesn't seem to be full
> I still wonder how is this possible. It's perhaps OK in the US,
> but European legislation mandates minimal warranty period of 2
> years.
European legislation doesn't mandate anything for business-to-
business sales, only business-to-consumer.
-A
___
>> If MPLS is ok for your budget then go for it. If it is too
>> expensive, then [...]
> Am I guilty of evading the MPLS tax? What on earth are you
> referring to?
MPLS today requires the Advanced IP Services feature set (or
better) and on some platforms that means you have to pay more.
On the
> Platform is 6509/12.2(33)SRA1, ingress card is 6704, egress is
> 6516, if that matters.
Oh, so you have one of those boxes than can't be upgraded to SRB.
Don't you just love those guys?
> Looks like that packets arriving from eompls circuit and
> destined to etherchannel all goes to just one of
201 - 248 of 248 matches
Mail list logo
