Hi,
i can understand your frustration because it fits in my/our experience with TAC
even if sometimes there's really an internal security bug that will be
addressed in an security advisory.
But my personal experience with TAC and Cisco in the last 3 years is like this,
if we open a TAC case
Hi,
On Tue, 3 May 2011 15:02:11 +
Mattias Niklasson mattias.niklas...@deltamanagement.se wrote:
To be honest, I feel more on top of things using all the abbreviations above,
but it would be really nice to get rid of STP. :) I have not seen any
configuration examples where VSS is used in
Hi,
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:16:45 -0400 (EDT)
The vlan in question had an arp timeout of 60s and had a couple of KVM
servers with 100 or so virtual machines. Especially when a large number
of VMs started up, we'd see periods of packet loss. My assumption is that
the sup720-3bxl can only
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:50:20 +0200
Łukasz Bromirski luk...@bromirski.net wrote:
By not handling IPv6 I've meant
not allocating 200k IPv6-TCAM-space for it.
You know the partioning on older cisco gear like cat 6500 or the 7600 platform?
Matthias
___
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:19:07 +0200
Łukasz Bromirski luk...@bromirski.net wrote:
I do not expect this hardware to handle 524k prefixes.
Why? First of all, if You're not handling IP multicasts and IPv6 that
much, repartition when the 330k IPv4 becomes 500k IPv4.
Excluding IPv6 routes is a
Hi,
Leonardo Gama Souza schrieb:
In this case I think you could configure Private VLANs, isolating each
customer in the same l3 network segment.
Private VLANs won't help you with ip-spoofing in the same subnet and
hsrp-attacks and not against arp attacks (but these can be prevented
using
