Re: [c-nsp] LACP Trunk between Cisco VSS and Brocade MLX.

Harry, Thanks for sharing, but I don't see Cisco 1/3/45 nor Cisco 1/3/46. The Brocade side is showing disabled. Have you tried disabling the Brocade 3/19 and 3/20 and then re-enabling them one at a time? Frank -Original Message- From: Harry Hambi - Atos [mailto:harry.ha...@bbc.co.uk]

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 7201 (G2) Traffic Performance (High CPU Utilization)

Here's the older post: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2007-April/03.html Frank -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 12:57 AM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Cc: Troy Boutso Su

Re: [c-nsp] Simple ACL not working 7600

We do have a good AUP that allows us to interact with customers on things like this. We don't have a captive portal, and even if we did, I wouldn't block over 10% of our customers! That would be a career changing move. And even more so if there's no reasonable mitigation other than buying a new

Re: [c-nsp] Netflow analysis tools?

Scott, It looks like the Netflow monitoring of PRTG is only for 30 days -- if you want to try something that doesn't expire, but only has the last hour of information, look at SolarWinds' product: http://www.solarwinds.com/products/freetools/appflow-jflow-sflow-analyzer.aspx Frank -Origin

[c-nsp] Platform feature development for 7200

I learned from our SE today that platform feature development for the 7200 has ended, and that SB code train is going to be EOL very soon. The recommendation is to move to the ASR1K. This affects us because we needed both IPv6 PBR and DHCPv6-PD with automatic route insertion on the same code rele

Re: [c-nsp] ARP strangeness

Gert, you couldn't be more insightful: I did a software upgrade of the 7609 a few weeks ago, which led our helpdesk to raise this issue to me. Frank -Original Message- From: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@greenie.muc.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:54 AM To: Frank Bulk - iName.c

Re: [c-nsp] ARP strangeness

n 19/01/11 07:47, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote: > Keegan: > > > > You're correct - without broadcast support, re-population initiated from the > 7609 is impossible. Once it's expired, the FTTH access gear's design, which > blocks broadcast traffic, makes it

Re: [c-nsp] ARP strangeness

VLAN per customer provides L2 separation/protection and would avoid the problems we've had. Just I don't like the (lack of) scalability of (extra) management of that approach. Frank -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On B

Re: [c-nsp] ARP strangeness

The order in which it fails (7609's ARP cache, 7609's MAC address table, and FTTH gear's forwarding bridge table) has not yet been made clear, because every since I started capturing state every 2 minutes, a week ago, it hasn't happened again. What you're describing should be all true. My only as

Re: [c-nsp] ARP strangeness

There's no way for a smart L2 could compensate for the broadcast issue. With a broadcast ARP the MAC address is not known, unlike a unicast ARP where it is. So the only way for that broadcast ARP to make it to the CPE, which is unknown, is to blast it out to all the FTTH ports. The FTTH vendor is

Re: [c-nsp] ARP strangeness

Keegan: You're correct - without broadcast support, re-population initiated from the 7609 is impossible. Once it's expired, the FTTH access gear's design, which blocks broadcast traffic, makes it impossible for the CPE to respond to the broadcast ARP. The FTTH access gear never allows broadca

Re: [c-nsp] ARP strangeness

Yes, broadcast traffic blocked from the headend toward the CPE. The challenge is as you described, getting the CPE in the home environment to ARP for its default gateway more regularly. Frank -Original Message- From: Rodney Dunn [mailto:rod...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Re: [c-nsp] ARP strangeness

No, the FTTH doesn't allow broadcasts, at all. =( Right now the ARP timeout is 480 seconds, CAM is 540 seconds, and the FTTH's FDB is 900 seconds. If the CPE had a reasonable ARP timeout, it would refresh the ARP entry for it's default gateway (7609) upon the first CPE-initiated packet after a pe

Re: [c-nsp] ARP strangeness

at you're describing about ARP expiration makes sense. Thanks, Frank -Original Message- From: Rodney Dunn [mailto:rod...@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 8:01 PM To: frnk...@iname.com Cc: 'Keegan Holley'; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ARP strangen

Re: [c-nsp] ARP strangeness

aging-time VlanAging Time -- Global 300 no vlan age other than global age configured These may also be causing the troubles you are seeing. You may want to increase these timers to keep the SUP and MFSC aging closer to in-sync. - Jared On Jan 3, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Frank Bulk

Re: [c-nsp] ARP strangeness

The 7609 does stop ARPing after receiving a reply from the CPE, but the 7609 ARPs again 7 minutes later. One person told me off-list that Cisco doesn't expire an ARP entry before checking its ARP entries by doing an ARP request. Since ARP timeout is set for 8 minutes, perhaps Cisco's approach is t

Re: [c-nsp] c3750x upgrade to 12.2(55)SE1 takes forever

Would this apply to the 3750 Metro, too? Frank -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 12:28 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] c3750x upgrade to 12.2(55

Re: [c-nsp] Freeing up an internal use VLAN on a 6509/Sup2/12.1(E) Native mode box

We ended marking those VLAN numbers as unavailable, and if your transport provider should be to use VLAN translation/re-tagging to accommodate your environment. Frank -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jason L

Re: [c-nsp] Bridging 802.1q tagged Ethernet traffic to multiple T-1 in a DS-3

M(L)PPP is not an option Frank -Original Message- From: Michael K. Smith - Adhost [mailto:mksm...@adhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 4:27 PM To: frnk...@iname.com; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Bridging 802.1q tagged Ethernet traffic to multiple T-1 in a

Re: [c-nsp] QPPB on Cisco 3750-ME

Is this a feature that only works on the ES ports of that switch? Frank -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Chris Mason Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 12:01 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] QPPB o

Re: [c-nsp] Logging Server

Did you look at Xangati, too, and if so, what did you think of it? Frank -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Wojciechowski Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:01 AM To: Walter Keen; Mohammad Khalil; cisco-nsp@

Re: [c-nsp] Cheapest Cisco desktop switch that supports Q-in-Q/802.1Q VLAN encapsulation/double-tagged VLANs/Stacked VLANs

So it sounds like if an end-customer wants an *untagged* port off of an SP switch that there aren't any/many options to deliver double-tagged traffic to that SP switch. Sounds like we can have double-tagged traffic between the core and distribution, but when we bring it to the edge we need to take

Re: [c-nsp] Cheapest Cisco desktop switch that supports Q-in-Q/802.1Q VLAN encapsulation/double-tagged VLANs/Stacked VLANs

Thanks for explaining the semantical differences. What I'm looking to do is the termination -- wouldn't the ME3400 do the trick? Frank -Original Message- From: sth...@nethelp.no [mailto:sth...@nethelp.no] Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 3:56 AM To: frnk...@iname.com Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.net

Re: [c-nsp] Missing BGP MIB support on Cisco 2621

2 MIB http://tools.cisco.com/ITDIT/MIBS/MainServlet?ReleaseSel=0&PlatformSel=0&fsS el=0&IMAGE_NAME=c2600-is4-mz.123-26.bin&SUBMIT2=Submit HTH Ziv -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk - iName.

[c-nsp] Missing BGP MIB support on Cisco 2621

According to Cisco's MIB Locator, c2600-is4-mz.123-26.bin should have CISCO-BGP4-MIB support, but when I try to walk that part of the tree (1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.187) in v1 or v2c that fails. I'm using this router to do IPv6 tunneling, and the only routes exchanged on this router are IPv6. Anyone else

Re: [c-nsp] Unicast flooding?

ame.com > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Unicast flooding? > > Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote: > >> Have you looked at: > >> > >> > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps708/products_tech_not > >> e09186a00807347ab.shtml#

Re: [c-nsp] Unicast flooding?

> -Original Message- > From: Phil Mayers [mailto:p.may...@imperial.ac.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:18 AM > To: frnk...@iname.com > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Unicast flooding? > > > While the event is occurring I have verified the ARP and CAM entry.

Re: [c-nsp] Unicast flooding?

I agree, I have some good evidence. I'm not against upgrading if that will resolve the issue. Frank > -Original Message- > From: Pavel Skovajsa [mailto:pavel.skova...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:43 AM > To: frnk...@iname.com > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject:

Re: [c-nsp] Loopback/VLAN question

iginal Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk - iName.com Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 20:19 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Loopback/VLAN question I have several uniquely numbered 802.1q tagged lin

Re: [c-nsp] Does the entire BGP routing table for IPv6 fit on a Cisco 2600 with 64 MB of DRAM?

o-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk - iName.com Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 2:58 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Does the entire BGP routing table for IPv6 fit on a Cisco 2600 with 64 MB of DRAM? Does the entir

Re: [c-nsp] Loopback/VLAN question

plain what do you want to achieve? I think this should be done in a different way. Also, what HW do you have? Arie -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk - iName.com Sent: Tuesday, December 15,

Re: [c-nsp] Loopback/VLAN question

It's my understanding that BVIs on the 7600-platform only bridge non-IP traffic, so that wouldn't work. Frank -Original Message- From: Antonio Querubin [mailto:t...@lava.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:30 PM To: Frank Bulk - iName.com Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net S

[c-nsp] Loopback/VLAN question

I have several uniquely numbered 802.1q tagged links coming into a Cisco 7609-S (12.2(33)SRB3) on a single physical port. I would like to use the same group of subnets for each VLAN and I tried using loopbacks but it doesn't work. Any ideas on what I'm doing wrong? interface Loopback 2 ip dhcp

Re: [c-nsp] Does the entire BGP routing table for IPv6 fit on a Cisco 2600 with 64 MB of DRAM?

rt Doering [mailto:g...@greenie.muc.de] Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 3:30 PM To: Frank Bulk - iName.com Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Does the entire BGP routing table for IPv6 fit on a Cisco 2600 with 64 MB of DRAM? Hi, On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 02:57:42PM -0600, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrot

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco L2 QoS

If you need to egress policing on those 24 ports, and those 24 ports don't talk to each other, try ingress policing on the uplink by using the enhanced port as the uplink.. Frank From: Mohammad Khalil [mailto:eng_m...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 3:15 AM To: frnk...@iname.c

[c-nsp] Does the entire BGP routing table for IPv6 fit on a Cisco 2600 with 64 MB of DRAM?

Does the entire BGP routing table for IPv6 (almost 2500 entries) fit on a Cisco 2600 with 64 MB of DRAM running 12.3(26)? I am planning to use this box for an IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling appliance, but not sure if it can hold the whole table. Regards, Frank _

Re: [c-nsp] PPPoE multiple sessions issue

At least they aren't duplicate IPs and the routing table seems to be correct give the situation. There is a "ppp ipcp unique username" command that you can assign to the Virtual Template, but a Cisco TAC person told me not to use that, as its use is not as the description would seem. Apparently t

Re: [c-nsp] ISR G2 "multicore"?

I would have to disagree -- while there are some features shared by most configurations, there's enough implementations using particular 'knobs' that a less than complete feature set would leave the majority of network engineers frustrated. For example, pick the less than complete implementation o

Re: [c-nsp] 7206VXR NPE for ~1000 RBE interfaces

An NPE400 should do fine if you're looking used or on a tight budget, but if you're looking to buy for growth, just get a G2 and be done with it. Frank -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Antonio Querubin Sent:

Re: [c-nsp] Management stuff in VRFs

In short, the best management VRF is a serial-based terminal server. =) Frank -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Peter Rathlev Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 4:34 PM To: cisco-nsp Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Mana

Re: [c-nsp] Arp Inspection Rate Limit

We deal with this issue on the BWA side of the house. We typically set up the client radios to rate-limit broadcasts (yes, there's more to broadcast than ARP, but ARP is most of it) to 7 pps and main radio to as low as 12 pps. Frank -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.

Re: [c-nsp] 7500 for DSL aggregation - RSP memory error?

Our DSLAM vendor supports PPPoA to PPPoE encapsulation/conversion (I'm not sure how), so that's our migration plan if we need to move to a new BRAS that doesn't have OC-3 interfaces. Frank -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] Multilink PPP Was -> Re: Balancing T1's with CEF

-> Re: Balancing T1's with CEF We are going to be deploying some more MLPPP ckts here in the next few months and I am not familiar with ADCs. Are those carrier dependant? Does this affect MPLS QoS? Thanks, -Jeff -Original Message- From: Frank Bulk - iName.com [mailto:frnk...@ina

Re: [c-nsp] Multilink PPP Was -> Re: Balancing T1's with CEF

All of this is further confirmation that if its IP that you need to send over multiple T1's, much better to get an ADC or like box that does Ethernet over one or more "raw" T-1's. Abstracts the whole transport issue, and gives Ethernet interfaces on both sides. Frank -Original Message- F

Re: [c-nsp] Monitoring BGP with NAGIOS

I appreciate all the feedback I received. The product of that feedback is this NAGIOS plugin: http://exchange.nagios.org/directory/Plugins/Network-Protocols/*-Routing/BGP %252D4/check_bgp_counters/details Regards, Frank -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mail

Re: [c-nsp] Monitoring BGP with NAGIOS

Thanks. I had compiled RFC1213-MIB into my MIB browser, but not BGP4-MIB. Once I did, it was all there The stuff at NAGIOS exchange left me wanting, which is why I'm fleshing out my own. Frank -Original Message- From: nicot...@radiological.warningg.com [mailto:nicot...@radiological.

Re: [c-nsp] Monitoring BGP with NAGIOS

Ian: Thanks for your input. I agree, snmptraps are the next obvious step. The URL you provided was the one I refered to when looking through the results of my walk through Cisco's BGP MIB. =) Since my upstream monitors our edge routers, including BGP, the monitoring is more to document that som

Re: [c-nsp] Netflow analyzer suggestions

It's not cheap, but Xangati may be a good match. Frank -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Andy Dills Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 2:21 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Netflow analyzer suggest

Re: [c-nsp] hung vty on SXH3a?

Have you tried the SNMP approach? Frank -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:16 AM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] hung vty on SXH3a? Hi, so far, we

Re: [c-nsp] Egress shaping/policing for bandwidth control on a 3750-ME

bandwidth control on a 3750-ME Try policing the port Sent from my iPhone On Mar 9, 2009, at 7:59 PM, "Brad Henshaw" wrote: > Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote: > >> I have two Cisco 3750-ME (Metro) where we are trying to apply >> an 8 Mbps bandwidth limit to it. >&

[c-nsp] Egress shaping/policing for bandwidth control on a 3750-ME

I have two Cisco 3750-ME (Metro) where we are trying to apply an 8 Mbps bandwidth limit to it. We tried HQM shaping but got a lovely message that "Hierarchical service-policies are only supported on ES interfaces". When we tried policing, we can't seem to apply the "mls qos bridged" command t

Re: [c-nsp] DHCP Binding Expiration

The ability to provide a new/different IP every time has been oft-discussed on ISC' dhcp-user listserv. IIRC, it contradicts the spec. You would have customize the code to have that functionality, or, as someone said, play with the leases file. -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@

Re: [c-nsp] PPPoA sessions

I've asked this before on cisco-bba: there doesn't appear to be an OID for that. I'm afraid you might need to screen-scrape. Frank -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mohammad Khalil Sent: Wednesday, February