with large
>>files don't work with Cisco. Probably for that reason.
--
Ian Dickinson
Senior Network Development Engineer
Pipex Communications
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pipex.net
This e-mail is subject to: http://www.pipex.net/disclaimer.html
__
rate happly, or will I need to make another
> switch set to server mode? I am more than happy to live without VTP in
> this part of the network.
--
Ian Dickinson
Senior Network Development Engineer
Pipex Communications
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pipex.net
This e-mail is subject to:
form to rewrite the vlan tag as well.
Cheers,
--
Ian Dickinson
Senior Network Development Engineer
Pipex Communications
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pipex.net
This e-mail is subject to: http://www.pipex.net/disclaimer.html
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisc
ter, then don't ping ;-)
AFAIK the only way to achieve something similar to this (should it be
required) would be to apply an outbound service-policy to the control-plane,
but you won't get to match on the output interface here, only on packet
header/content stuff - so it's not
t at all. I just hope it catches up and lives up to
the "S" in 12.2SE. I'd file a feature request but I'm too demoralised.
--
Ian Dickinson
Senior Network Development Engineer
Pipex Communications
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pipex.net
This e-mail is subject to: http://
o that - remove all from /0 (default route) to /7. Permit /8 and up.
>
> OTOH, unless you are running into CEF updating problems, why bother? If
> you have a more specific route, it will win - and if not, the /1 will do
> the same thing as getting a default route from your upstream
chment circuit
>>"perceived" MTU such to be able to fool an EoMPLS pseudowire into being able
>>to come up (to pass RFC4447 MTU check) when trunk (main) interface is of a
>>higher MTU on the local router than on the remote.
>>
>>Kind Regards,
>>
>>D
Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 01:45:27PM +0100, Ian Dickinson wrote:
>>Doing weight or local pref tweaks inbound etc gives you the chance to check
>>that everything actually has migrated to other paths - you also get to see
>>that the traffic
ough some unlucky souls may say the NSE-1 was worse, I never had one).
--
Ian Dickinson
Senior Network Development Engineer
Pipex Communications
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
INOC-DBA: 5413*426
http://www.pipex.net
This e-mail is subject to: http://www.pipex.net/disclaimer.html
_
d back again to apply ACLs
there. However, the 'special command' only applied to IP packets without
options - if someone sent IP options, IPX, AT, NetBIOS, etc, you were shafted.
I'm sure there are other reasons too. It was rubbish.
--
Ian Dickinson
Senior Network Development Enginee
ound traffic is sorted.
Doing outbound prepends or community stuff is less certain (depends on the
peer), and could cause some unneeded DFZ churn - depends on topology of course
- but again, once you've check this, you *know* your inbound is good to go.
That certainty is the reason to do t
x27;, 'ip route priority high tag' and 'external overload
signalling'.
(The advice on this thread has been good, and thankfully it's much easier to
find IS-IS info these days than it used to be)
--
Ian Dickinson
Senior Network Development Engineer
Pipex Communications
[EMAIL P
2900XL and 3500XL are exactly equivalent in this regard (and most other ways
too other than GBIC slots) - as long as you have the EN models with 8Mb - I'd
advise putting any non-EN models with 4Mb in the trash. Make sure you're on
12.0(5)WC17 and subject to the limitations (no rapid SPT, no extend
13 matches
Mail list logo
