Re: [c-nsp] Software Download Enhancements

At 02:46 PM 11/15/2010, Justin M. Streiner wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Pavel Skovajsa wrote: I have just received notification below. [...] To improve your experience with Cisco and protect your investment in Cisco Products, we're pleased to announce the improvement of Software download

[c-nsp] dmzlink-bw and ebgp-multihop 2

I have a very unusual network setup, ISP-A requires me to have ebgp-multihop of 2 because we're not physically connected (we seem to be 2 hops away) Anyways, is there some kind of design implementation to use to make dmzlink-bw work? neighbor disable-connected-check only works if you're 1

[c-nsp] 4948 Port question/confusion

This might sound like a very strange question. A 4948 has 52 physical ports, 48 copper and 4 sfp, however, in ios we only see 48 ports. Is this normal? 122-31.SGA1 ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] Router/Switch performance

/quickreference/index.html -- Gary Stanley ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ 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/

Re: [c-nsp] Question about show sdm prefer command output on Cat3560G

: no switchport etc) ports. -- Gary Stanley ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ 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/

Re: [c-nsp] 3750 as bgp platform ?

At 10:53 PM 10/27/2007, matthew zeier wrote: I made need a (cost effective) bgp-capable router for a remote deployment which would only need to announce -1- route and take in a default route from -1- provider. Also needs to push 100Mbps of traffic. A 3550 or 3750 can do what you require just

Re: [c-nsp] BGP Communities - Sample Configs

Architecture. It has some really good example(s) on how to accomplish this. -- Gary Stanley ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http

Re: [c-nsp] Full net table too large for Sup720 already?

At 11:58 PM 10/26/2007, jim bartus wrote: I don't claim to be an expert but I looked into this before and here's what I found: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/presentations/fib-desilva.pdf check out page 8, page 10, and the first bullet point on page 15. Page 10 says the limit on a 3B is 192k by

Re: [c-nsp] 3550 + 6509-sup720 output buffer failures

At 02:39 AM 10/20/2007, Adrian Minta wrote: 3550 is XL ? No. 3550 EMI. -- Gary Stanley ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http

[c-nsp] 3550 + 6509-sup720 output buffer failures

Greetings. I have a 3550 doing basic layer3 routing on a single port to a 6509, but the 3550's port (fa0/1) to the 6509 reports a low amount of output buffer failures and underruns. I've seen these errors before on another 3550 plugged up to the 6509, but I was unable to find the cause. It

Re: [c-nsp] PPS ratings on Cisco's site?

At 12:21 PM 7/25/2007, Nate Carlson wrote: The URL http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/765/tools/quickreference/routerperformance.pdf is no longer valid.. anyone happen to have a mirror of this page? -nc Try here:

Re: [c-nsp] Advice on upgrade

At 03:23 AM 7/7/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, The time has come for us to upgrade the border router, currently not a Cisco. The traffic passing on GIGE is around 800 mbp/s Have need for 3 GIG ports currently with view to a fourth next quarter. It has 17 ACLs (not huge lists). New to

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

At 05:23 AM 6/24/2007, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 03:47:01PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote: I was mostly curious if someone had had issues with them, other than these documented limitations. Some of the worst problems we experienced: - switch suddenly stopping to switch any

Re: [c-nsp] BGP Cpu

At 11:23 AM 6/21/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, someone have idea on how a clear ip bgp * soft in and clear ip bgp soft out can smooth out CPU use ? Before the clear: CPU utilization for five seconds: 99%/0%; one minute: 69%; five minutes: 66% PID Runtime(ms) Invoked uSecs 5Sec

Re: [c-nsp] Maximum Full tables on GRP-B

At 07:04 PM 4/30/2007, Dan Armstrong wrote: As a rule of thumb, how many peers with full routing tables do you think you could put on a GRP-B with 512M or RAM? Would it be suicide to do 5 full feeds + some smaller peering? Do you really need to take full tables? You could take partials/full and

Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?

At 01:50 PM 4/21/2007, Oliver Boehmer \(oboehmer\) wrote: check the archives, this has been discussed before.. it boils down to use what you're most comfortable and familiar with, and as you're using OSPF already, the choice should be clear. Indeed. Stick with OSPF.