Ibrahaim,
Each scope is limited to a specific use; I believe most configurations
for intra-AS VPN would use type 10, and you only use type-11 for InterAS
VPN. I don't think it matters if Cisco supports it, because the type of
LSA in use depends upon the type of feature in use, which will differ
ba
Ms do this yet.
I believe the two main test vendors support all three LSAs for this use.
Leah
From: Egor Zimin [mailto:les...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:31 PM
To: Leah Lynch (Contractor)
Cc: Ovidiu Neghina; shims...@cisco.com; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp
Opaque LSA types 9-11 are used for TE reachability. I tried to google this, but
didn't find any hits. I think the best reference for this area is Eric Osborn's
RSVP-TE book, its excellent. To be honest, the best way to learn this is to try
it out in a lab, it is just not very well documented. Yo
Does anyone know if blank slot covers for the 65/7600 switches can be
ordered, and if so what the part number is? I asked my sales team, but
no answer back, and I cannot find the part number on the Dynamic
Configuration Tool.
TIA,
Leah
This email may contain confidential and privileged mate
Right, I believe any router running code written within the last 5 years
supports it today. It is very mature at this point.
Leah
From: Kenny Sallee [mailto:kenny.sal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 10:05 PM
To: Leah Lynch (Contractor)
Cc: Dan Goldberg; cisco-nsp
Avoid the soft-reconfiguration statement altogether, it is a legacy
command that stores an extra copy of the table. Just use clear ip bgp
in, that will use the route refresh capability without any extra
configuration or memory use.
Leah
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.neth
When you build a TE tunnel, if you put it into OSPF or IS-IS, it will appear as
an interface in your routing/forwarding table. So, from there, you can route
how you like. You can have multiple tunnels to the same destination over
different or the same path(s) and send traffic based on DiffServ t
This is related to the forwarding address of 0.0.0.0; check this out:
https://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/paws/13682/10.pdf
It should help you fix it.
Leah
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of David Granzer
I am pretty sure default routes are always type-5 because they contain
no native link data. But, I don't think the spec calls this out
specifically. I am wondering if anyone out there has seen a default
route that was not a type-5, and if so, could they post a snippet of
that LSA database?
-O
You may check Cisco's site, I remember having this issue, and I had to
upgrade IOS, Catos, or rommon. I cant remember what exactly had to be
upgraded, because it was a few years ago.
Leah
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net]
You can use the 'aggregate-address advertise-map' command, instead of
the route map and you should have the same effect setting communities on
the summaries. You can also try tuning the weight for the redistributed
routes to set he preference you like.
Leah
-Original Message-
From: cisco-
I am working on a project to connect a Cisco 6500 switch between
switches of two other manufacturers - Ciena 5300 and Ceterus 8212
devices. Has anyone out there run into any issues connecting to these
devices using 802.1q? The Cisco switches will just be bridging tagged
traffic from one device to t
I believe this is because of the order of operations, once the MPLS
headers are added to the frame, its no longer seen as an IP packet,
because it is switched at L2. Could be wrong, but that is what I was
thinking last week when I commented on all the different encapsulation
types.
Leah
-Orig
Wow! That's a lot of encapsulation for each packet (Eth, GRE, MPLS,
IPSec)! I would suggest peeling back the layers to find where the
problem originates. Id pull each upper-layer encapsulation off entirely
and make sure the MPLS with GRE is working first. Then, if that works,
put the IPSec back on,
What address scope are you using?
Leah
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Tomas Lynch
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 11:40 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] BGP IPV6 strange message
I'm trying
Are you absolutely sure that MD5 key is the same on all routers?
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Rick Ernst
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:25 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Odd behavior
Right, if you post the list maybe people can see if something is wrong
with it.
Leah
-Original Message-
From: Andy B. [mailto:globic...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 10:10 AM
To: Leah Lynch (Contractor)
Cc: Cory Ayers; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] route-map
Will you post more of your configurations and just take the addresses out? That
way people can get a better idea of the problem...
Leah
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Andy B.
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 201
18 matches
Mail list logo
