Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 5K optimisation for iSCSI traffic

rs, Brad http://bradhedlund.com From: Geert Nijs [mailto:geert.n...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 2:00 PM To: Brad Hedlund (brhedlun) Cc: Matthew Melbourne; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 5K optimisation for iSCSI traffic Thanks Brad for this tip. I was

Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 5K optimisation for iSCSI traffic

countered. I am hoping >>> we can implement bpdufilter on the FEX ports (as well as disabling STP >>> on downstream switches). >>> >>> On 5 August 2011 14:12, Brad Hedlund (brhedlun) >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Note that the FEX will di

Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 5K optimisation for iSCSI traffic

Note that the FEX will disable any port that receives a BPDU, by design in hardware. You will need to disable STP on the blade-switch-to-FEX links for this to work. If it's Cisco blade switches you can use Flex Links. Cheers, Brad http://bradhedlund.com Sent from my iPad (please excuse brevity

Re: [c-nsp] NX-OS 5.1 proxy l3

If you have an M1/F1 mixed chassis, any given F1 card can use any and all M1 cards for L3 switching. Cheers, Brad Hedlund http://bradhedlund.com On May 2, 2011, at 8:59 PM, "Tim Durack" wrote: > What does an increased number of layer-3 forwarders (16 to 128) do for > me in NX-OS 5.1? > > --

Re: [c-nsp] disabling GigE negotiation on NX-OS

"link came up for me. again -- this is with n5000, not n5500, but i wouldn't think too great of a difference?" GigE support has been available for quite some time on the N5000, but only recently added to N5500: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/datacenter/nexus5000/sw/release /notes/Rel_5

Re: [c-nsp] Non-disruptive ISSU for Nexus 5000

stream FEX modules, but > keeping the VPCs up on 10 gig ports is what's important. > > Thanks, > > Chuck > > -Original Message- > From: Brad Hedlund (brhedlun) [mailto:brhed...@cisco.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 10:53 PM > To: Church, Charles &

Re: [c-nsp] Non-disruptive ISSU for Nexus 5000

Just because your topology has no blocking links (thanks to vPC), doesn't mean it's a good idea to disable STP. vPC cannot protect against loops you might create. For example, if a new cable is connected between 5010A and 5010B with STP disabled = Bad News. Or, if you misconfigure your vPC int

Re: [c-nsp] Non-disruptive ISSU for Nexus 5000

Hi Chuck, ISSU for Nexus 5000 is only supported when the switch is a Leaf on the Spanning Tree, not a Root. That might be the case with your 5010s, but not your 5020s. Reason for that is because there is a ~90 sec budget to restart the lone control plane, and that is too long for a STP root n

Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 2232 FEX into UCS 6120/6140?

Tom, N2232 + UCS 6100 for C-Series connectivity and in-band management via UCSM is not supported today, and wouldn't work even if you tried. Yes, all the hardware is capable. It's just a matter of brining that capability into the UCSM software. Ping your Cisco SE for details ;) -Brad Hedlund

Re: [c-nsp] suppress bgp updates?

Hiding internal routing turmoil, as you state it, works best when you are aggregating/summarizing -- which you are not doing here. Your RIB entry for 192.168.2.0 changes between static and OSPF routes. BGP sees this as a route change and does its job of notifying neighbors. This would work be

Re: [c-nsp] unsupported" gbics in Nexus gear, I should have added on the 5K switches

NX-OS hidden command: 'service unsupported-transceiver' Brad Hedlund -- Sent from my mobile phone (please excuse brevity, typos) On Oct 31, 2010, at 12:48 PM, "chris stand" wrote: > I should have added - on the 5K switches, not the routers ( although I do > care about them as well ) > >> >>

Re: [c-nsp] tracking

IOS XR supports BFD for static routes: https://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios_xr_sw/iosxr_r3.3/interfaces/configuration/guide/hc33bfd.html#wp1112516 Brad Hedlund -- Sent from my mobile phone (please excuse brevity, typos) On Oct 10, 2010, at 10:10 AM, "jack daniels" wrote: > Hi guys, > > can I

Re: [c-nsp] 10 gig ethernet interface up, line protocol down on VSL connection

onfig on switch 2 is correct Reinhold, using port channel 20 and link 2 on that one. I'll be back with the devices tomorrow morning, I'll dig through the logs and some other int troubleshooting tomorrow. Chuck -Original Message- From: Brad Hedlund (brhedlun) [mailto:brhed...@cis

Re: [c-nsp] 10 gig ethernet interface up, line protocol down on VSL connection

Charles, FWIW, this happened to me once and it turned out I forgot the last step in the VSS conversion process: 'switch mode accept virtual'. Cheers, Brad Sent from my iPhone Brad Hedlund, CCIE 5530 Cisco Systems, Inc. Technical Solutions Architect Data Center http://bradhedlund.con On Ju

Re: [c-nsp] Can UCS 6120XP be used for normal host connectivity?

Short answer, No, you don't want to do that. Long answer: There are two types of ports on the UCS 6100, "Uplink" ports, and "Server" ports. At this time, only the 2104 FEX modules inside the blade chassis can be connected to "Server" ports. The default and preferred mode of the 6100 is "E

Re: [c-nsp] ebgp load balancing using maxiumu-paths TCAM impact onSup720-3BXL?

Better to use 'ebgp multihop' and peer to provider router's loopback. Then have equal cost static routes to provider's loopback via the two physical interface next hop IP addresses. Cheers, Brad Hedlund bhedl...@cisco.com http://www.internetworkexpert.org On May 20, 2009, at 9:47 PM, "Pet

Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 5K FCoE to FC breakout

Not sure about Infiniband, but costs for 10GE server access have come down to ~$800/port. Not bad considering 1GE is ~$300/port (on a good switch). Sent from my iPhone Brad Hedlund, CCIE 5530 Cisco Systems, Inc. Consulting System Engineer Data Center (773) 695-8226 On Apr 17, 2009, at 4:51

Re: [c-nsp] Logical Router Segmentation

The term "VRF-Lite" comes from when Cisco started delivering VRF capabilities across all Catalyst L3 platforms, even the low end. Many vendors do support VRF on their high end routers and switches, but few have comprehensive VRF support from the high end all the to the low end. MBGP is no