https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCva74055/
Change from LAN base to IP base license works around it.
--
Crist J. Clark
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archiv
t publicly
available."
An IOS bug wouldn't surprise me. We already ran into,
CSCva22545 - LACP with mode active doesn't come up in 3.7.4
If they shipped an IOS-XE that can't do active port channels,
why be surprised if DHCP snooping doesn't work
0.33 0.110.110
MMA DB TIMER
189I 347045925 0 0.22 0.110.110
VRRS Main thread
--
Crist J. Clark
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.n
a backup when this is the only
port on the VLAN?
--
Crist J. Clark
___
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/
Looking for the equivalent of the IOS command,
ip arp arpa alias
In NXOS. I know about "ip " alias in Nexus-speak, but I
don't think that includes the "alias" functionality. How do I get
that out of a Nexus, specifically, an N9396
What is the equivalent of the IOS command,
ip arp arpa alias
In NXOS? I know about, ip arp , on Nexus, but how
do I get the behavior added by alias keyword?
--
Crist J. Clark
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https
have a
> > vague memory of having them in some servers in the past as well, but
> > I'm not seeing any of those right at this moment.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Crist J. Clark
> > <cjc+cisco-...@pumpky.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 a
xus to Nexus, but it is flaky
Nexus to Catalyst.
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Crist J. Clark
> <cjc+cisco-...@pumpky.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:45:58PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> >> On 14/09/2015 22:39, Crist J. Clark wrote:
> >> >
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:45:58PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 14/09/2015 22:39, Crist J. Clark wrote:
> > We are running all of this over SMF.
>
> why are you using LRM transceivers then?
I am not exactly sure of the design decisions behind the choice to use LRM over
S
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 14/09/2015 21:03, Crist J. Clark wrote:
> > We're obviously looking at getting new optics, but we're wondering
> > why what we have works and if it still isn't possible to get
> > the Nexus 5548 and Cat
at getting new optics, but we're wondering
why what we have works and if it still isn't possible to get
the Nexus 5548 and Cat 6880X links to behave better.
We're working with TAC and our Cisco reps, but wonder if other
customers have experience with 5000s and SFP-10G-LRM modules.
--
Cris
11 matches
Mail list logo
