On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 4:38 AM, James Bensley wrote:
> I would say ASR9001, try to avoid ASR1000 series for this if you can.
>
>
Hi James,
What makes you say that? I've had good success over the years with the
ASR1k series for PPP (L2TP and PPPoE) termination so interested in any
perceived adva
As with others, it's been a while since I've worked on this platform (we
were running 12.2SR train generally).
Having said that, I agree that for some reason the 7201 did show higher CPU
for the same traffic level as other platforms - but as mentioned we found
it levelled off with increasing traff
Speaking for my own experience, it wasn't a problem. From memory we had to
change one RADIUS attribute we were using for shaping I believe (we were
using an older attribute that caused a full VAI to be created, updating
that fixed it). We don't do PBR however.
One thing I would suggest however - i
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:26 AM, MKS wrote:
> Does the ASR9K halv the tcam space like 7600 when enabling uRPF?
I've actually been having this discussion with my SE for a little
while now. I have the original line cards (I believe they are called
'Trident' rather than the newer 'Typhoon' cards) an
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:26 AM, David H wrote:
> Hi all, I've got a few general questions about the ASR. On Cisco's
> site sometimes I see reference to the 1004 having a 20 gig capacity,
> other times 40. Will the 1004 accept the ESP-40 and SIP40 interface
> cards to get to 40 gigs or is the max
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
wrote:
> Has anyone met any issues with .0 and .255 as host addresses?
>
I've tried it before and found that apart from some broken
implementations, the biggest issue seemed to be certain Internet
banking sites that seemed to view traffic f
