On 2023-06-01 21:38, Bryan Holloway via cisco-nsp wrote:
https://community.cisco.com/t5/xr-os-and-platforms/problems-with-a99-8x100ge-tr-and-ios-xr-6-5-3/td-p/4013668
This chassis has been up and churning packets for several years, so it
was presumed to be a possible hardware fail.
We acquired
On 2023-04-29 14:47, Richard Clayton via cisco-nsp wrote:
Hi Guys
s/Guys/everyone/g
archive
path scp://
user:password@1.2.3.4/CUSTOMERS/CUSTOMER1/CUSTOMER-LONDON6-ETH1.cfg
write-memory
time-period 10080
Because the password part of the SCP config is not an IOS recognised
password I don't
On 2023-01-24 14:13, Marcin via cisco-nsp wrote:
Hi,
Do Cisco have a 32 x 10G (at least more than 16 x 100G) box with a
similar scale to ACX87100-32C / Ufispace S9600-32X (basically J2 / J2C
chipsets)? It needs to have deeper buffers, >500K MACs + MPLS feature
set. I thought that I'd find
On 2023-01-12 16:45, Shawn L via cisco-nsp wrote:
I'm wondering what other providers are doing when they need to
transport a
bunch of third-party layer-2 services?
For Example -- if another SP wants to hand you 3 vlans (for example
10,11,12) and have you transport them to a couple of sites.
On 06/01/2023 14:15, Drew Weaver via cisco-nsp wrote:
Also is there any way to figure out what this stuff should cost?
It's some variant of Broadcom Trident chipset, right? Trident3-X5?
Though remember that the value of hardware packaging around the ASIC is
extremely variable. Poor cooling
On 2022-08-06 06:15, Saku Ytti via cisco-nsp wrote:
On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 at 05:27, Paul via cisco-nsp
wrote:
Storm control pps is bugged on the 10g ports on the older 4900
platforms, 4948E , 4900M, sup6 platforms.
My guess would be that PPS is not supported by the hardware and
behaviour is
On 28/12/2021 10:02, Ted Pelas Johansson wrote:
I guess you should be able to use the pmacct on an external box:
$ pmacct -c dst_host -N 10.0.1.200
Seconded - pmacct is far simpler than mucking about with XR. :)
--
Tom
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
On 05/11/2021 07:53, Mark Tinka wrote:
> We are retiring ours, because CPU performance for just 2x IPv4 + 2x IPv6
> full sessions is too much for the Freescale PPC CPU.
I may live to regret asking this, but...
I've run a lot more than that on a 9001, and it handled it all with
aplomb. They're
On 04/11/2021 18:26, Robert Hass wrote:
> What IPv4 FIB scale I can expect from ASR9001 ?
> BGP table is growing and I want to predict how much lifespan those
> boxes still have.
It's Typhoon (2nd Gen) so 4M v4, or 2M v6.
Assuming you don't use any of it for anything else, e.g. labels. You're
On 07/09/2021 19:46, Shawn L wrote:
> As long as it's not specific to the actual optic.
Yeah, this is key really. I think in most cases TAC are keen enough to
realise when having third-party optics in a box is or isn't relevant to
the fault you've logged. No-one's going to say, "Oh I think this
On 05/07/2021 12:20, chiel wrote:
> I might going to use a 7600 with RSP720 to terminate 1000 users, where
> each user has a own vlan and L3. I will also be making a 1000 DHCP
> config, one for each vlan.
>
> My question is will the RSP720 have no problem with a 1000 x a DHCP
> config? Because
On 09/04/2021 18:02, james list wrote:
> do you have any suggestion where I can find useful information over www in
> order to provide DC interconnection of my two merging customers where one
> is running MPLS/VPLS with Juniper technology and the other one EVPN/VXLAN
> with Cisco ?
>
> The
On 06/01/2021 14:30, h...@interall.co.il wrote:
> Using either an ASR1001x or ASR1002x running IOS XE, is one able to
> operate a 1G link on a 10G port (SFP-10G-LR)?
Does the 10GBASE-LR optic support 1000BASE-LX? Many do not, some might.
Separately, the data sheet[1] states that the 1002-X
On 12/11/2020 16:24, Curtis Piehler wrote:
> 6.4.x if I'm not mistaken. RSP440 has no 64 bit support last I read.
You are certainly not mistaken:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-9000-series-aggregation-services-routers/eos-eol-notice-c51-737819.html
"Note:
On 22/09/2020 07:10, Gert Doering wrote:
> It's not "somewhat old", Cisco has explicitly declared the RSP-440
> end-of-life.
In colloquial British English use, these things mean the same thing :p
> So - if you know exactly what you are getting yourself into, getting a
> used ASR-9006 + RSP-440
> Whats happens when TCAM is full on 7600/RSP720RSP-3CXL?
2016.
> Last question. Can I take a full BGP feed on both v4 and v6 with a
> A9K-RSP440-TR? Or do I need the -SE?
More seriously - the 'TR' scale and 'SE' scale don't differ in TCAM,
only in their installed RAM. This may matter to
On 10/02/2020 22:24, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> Seems pretty straightforward to me. You posted a link. It was broken.
> Case closed.
Except it wasn't; I checked (and you're the only one complaining ;))
> Just because *you* or some other person thinks there are *critical*
> security
On 10/02/2020 21:01, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> How about you just say in English what it is you want to say instead
> of wasting everyone's time?
"Click the fucking link and find out" ?
(Protip: never ask a Brit to be explicit.)
> Page does not exist, and I do not do tinyurl or bitly or any of
On 10/02/2020 15:48, Aaron Gould wrote:
> Dude it's bridging eth frames just fine, why would i
I can TOTALLY find half a dozen reasons in here, braaa:
https://tinyurl.com/uu3dmyb (https://tools.cisco.com/security ... )
--
Tom
___
cisco-nsp mailing
On 10/02/2020 15:35, Aaron Gould wrote:
> dsw2-4503#sh ver | in IOS
>
> Cisco IOS Software, Catalyst 4500 L3 Switch Software (cat4500-IPBASEK9-M),
> Version 12.2(31)SGA1, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc3)
Please tell me that you're upgrading it?
--
Tom
___
On 28/01/2020 17:43, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> Backup Direct connection:
> From Win10 to Google: ~25MBps on 3 streams.
>
> Backup via Chrome browser (UDP based):
> From Win10 to Google.com/drive: ~290Mbit on 3 streams
... On the other hand, If you really do mean 25 MegaBytes (200Mbit/sec)
and
On 28/01/2020 17:43, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> Just wondering whether we have an esoteric issue with LACP between Cisco
> and Juniper gear.
Probably not, based on that discussion.
Look at how many errors you're incurring per link -- even small amounts
of background errors (on either side) could
On 28/01/2020 15:00, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> Has anyone ever seen any TCP performance issues (not UDP) between
> Juniper and Cisco routers when running 3x 10Gb/sec via LACP?
I think it may be prudent to expand on "what type" of performance issues
you see affecting TCP traffic.
--
Tom
On 28/01/2020 14:49, Nathan Lannine wrote:
> Gigabit or TenGigabit based on the configuration. However, both
> types of interfaces always exist logically, they just don't get used
> until you configure/use the physical port one way or the other.
Yes, this is the Catalyst/IOS method -- which I
On 09/01/2020 18:19, Gert Doering wrote:
> Cisco has a zillion products that mainly differenciate in "which of
> the advertised features are unusable or broken" and "what operating
> system do we use this week?".
>
> Ditching out half the products and using the engineering capacity
> freed by
On 09/01/2020 15:56, Adrian Minta wrote:
> Nexus 9000 is more suitable for this task. Even the price is much lower.
This. Stick with the data centre products for data centre tasks.
If you need NCS for some other reason as well, that's fine, but start
with the suitable product range as Adrian
On 18/12/2019 18:38, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> On paper, the RSP440-SEs support all our current and planned hardware
> on up to and including it’s last supported XR version 6.4.2 (32 bit).
> Feature wise, I’d be surprised if it didn’t support any of what we’ve
> got going on, but there may be some
On 11/12/2019 19:51, Gert Doering wrote:
> If you need to ask, you can't afford one.
Wait, I thought you *needed* to ask if you wanted to afford one?
--
Tom
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On 31/10/2019 11:40, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Might have been a case of the times. We don't see this as an issue today.
Notably I was buying <10 devices. My buying power was invariably a lot
lower than that of many others at the time.
--
Tom
___
cisco-nsp
On 29/10/2019 11:41, Saku Ytti wrote:
> I hear a lot of people buying MX204 for 15k and less, when they buy a
> single unit, unsure if loss leader to get people to try JNPR.
When I last looked at this, several years ago, the cost of support for
the Juniper MX (in this case, MX480) was ridiculous
On 24/10/2019 09:27, Werner le Grange wrote:
> You can't upgrade directly from release 4 to 6. First upgrade to 5.3.4
> before upgrading to release 6.
Neither one of you have paid any attention to the fact that the OP
specified a 9901, not a 9001 or 9006.
These came with 64-bit XR, so any
On 30/03/2019 14:26, Colton Conor wrote:
> Does the Nexus 3064 support MPLS? VPLS? Routing using OSPF and BGP?
You can of course look this up on the Cisco website:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/switches/nexus-3064-switch/index.html
See the data sheet towards the bottom, which lists
On 06/03/2019 00:08, James Jun wrote:
> For considering greenfield deployments of ASR-9001, the product you're
> looking
> for now is the ASR-9901.
>
> There is a specific bundle/SKU called 'ASR-9901-120G', which only licenses
> 120Gbps
> worth of bandwidth on the chassis, and prices it pretty
On 19/02/2019 16:01, James Bensley wrote:
> I looked at 6880 a few years ago,
> I'm pretty sure this was one of the reasons we doing for it it, too
> similar to the 6500 (including this limitation).
I wonder why it's in the docs/supported in the IOS version...
Isn't there a newer gen of
On 14/02/2019 09:01, Christophe Fillot wrote:
> Anyone knows if this platform supports QinQ termination ?
>
> The "encapsulation dot1q X second-dot1q Y" command is not present, but
> maybe there is another way to do it ?
EVCs?
On 21/12/2018 10:43, James Bensley wrote:
> Did you mean RSP880-LT? RL is the rate limited version down to 440Gbps
> which is license to 880Gbps.
Ah, I suspect I mean both. RL came out first, from memory; I bought a
few for $job-1, given that their list cost was identical to an RSP440
and we
On 19/12/2018 20:29, Tim Warnock wrote:
> When I saw a version 6 XR image for an ASR9001 I was shocked.
>
> I had been told quite a while ago that 5.3.4 was it and no to expect anything
> newer.
It was my counter on sun-setting 32-bit XR that the 9001 was the device
that would warrant keeping
On 19/12/2018 19:59, Charles Spurgeon wrote:
> Does anyone have info on what is going on? What are people running on
> their ASR 99xx platforms?
It matters deeply which 99xx, and what supervisor(s) you have in it.
9904 uses the same RSPs as 9006/9010.
9906 and 9910 use a different RSP, with
--- Begin Message ---
On 14/11/2018 20:42, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> I got the following when inserted ISM module into ASR9k the other day, would
> you know what is it complaining about?
> This line card does not use NPs, and is neither Trident-based nor
> Typhoon-based so should not
On 28/09/18 14:57, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> To that end, I’ve got a bunch of WS-X6148A-GE-45AF cards and a pair of
> SUP720-3BXLs in a 7606 chassis (PID: CISCO7606) and it works fine despite the
> WS-X6148A-GE-45AF data sheet making no reference to 7600 support, only 6500
> support.
>
> I need
On 12/09/18 12:42, Drew Weaver wrote:
> Has anyone come across an SR4 transceiver for the A9K-2X100GE-TR? Specific
> experience with certain vendors/products is appreciated.
This was the top result for a Google search of 'CFP SR4':
http://www.3c-link.com/index.php/100G/show/26.html
I'll save
On 24/07/18 23:02, Michael Malitsky wrote:
> I have a Cat 4506 (Sup7L-E) serving a medium-sized business. We are
> looking to overhaul the server side and add VSAN on 4-5 hosts, for
> which we'll need a handful (8-10) 10Gb ports. I see the only option
> for the 4506 chassis is the 4712-SFP
On 16/07/18 18:21, David Wilkinson wrote:
> #show etherchannel load-balance
> EtherChannel Load-Balancing Configuration:
> src-dst-port
>
> EtherChannel Load-Balancing Addresses Used Per-Protocol:
> Non-IP: Source XOR Destination MAC address
> IPv4: Source XOR Destination TCP/UDP
On 12/04/18 18:06, Gert Doering wrote:
> yum update
>
> ... now *that* would be nice...
I thought you could do that...
https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/assets/global/DK/seminarer/pdfs/XR60.pdf
(pgs. 30 & 31)
... In a manner of speaking.
--
Tom
___
On 08/03/18 00:34, Robert Blayzor wrote:
> What (if any) 25GB server NIC’s has anyone had good success with
> using the Nexus 93128-EX ?>
> Anyone with experience with the Mellanox MCX4111A-XCAT ConnectX-4 ?
> I assume one would have to use compatible SFP-H25G-CUxM to keep the
> Nexus side happy?
On 16/12/17 02:01, David Hubbard wrote:
> Seems like a glaring omission in this platform to not have an active/active
> layer 2 option.
Remember: if they sold you one box that did everything, you'd buy fewer
boxes.
--
Tom
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
On 12/06/17 19:28, Nick Cutting wrote:
> I think this is possible, but with a little bit of downtime when you change
> the new links from 1000 to ten gig.
> You should be able to lab this up with 1000Mbit and 100Mbit on an old switch,
> nothing laying around?
If this causes a little downtime,
On 26/05/17 15:24, Nick Cutting wrote:
> I got a couple of greedy replies from traseiver vendors, but nothing
> from the wise old network wizards.
ProLabs were very nice to me; greed isn't really the problem - these
things won't be getting made at any scale yet.
> The GLC-10G-T - which seems to
On 08/05/17 14:17, Mohammad Khalil wrote:
> Becuase I have discovered that RSP-8G is not supported on the 6.1.x train
Quite astounding that XR didn't stop an attempt to activate this on the
Trident RSP. :/
--
Tom
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
Hi James,
On 01/05/17 18:29, James Jun wrote:
> Yep, the Powerglide LCs are out and shipping now supposedly:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-9000-series-aggregation-services-routers/datasheet-c78-738704.html
Ah-ha! Good spot.
> It says line card supports LAN
On 19/04/17 12:20, Catalin Dominte wrote:
> Yes, until you realise that Cisco MSTP does not talk to Juniper MSTP for
> some odd reason! :)
MSTP is quite problematic between vendors, and most of the time the
reason is that certain operating systems - usually Cisco - have certain
VLANs configured
On 01/05/17 14:20, Christian wrote:
>> IOS XR 6.x *DOES* support Typhoon, just not in the 64-bit flavor.
>
> yeah, based on dead QNX
It doesn't magically stop working after 5.3.4. :)
>> So XR has no future for <100G kit?
>
> I'm pretty sure:
> - 32-bit IOS-XR will be here for a long time
> -
On 05/04/17 15:28, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> although 5.3.1 is unaffected by the bug - this machine still is due
> to incomplete upgrade.
Ah-ha! Problem solved - read the upgrade guides carefully. :)
And do upgrade to at least 5.3.4 whilst you're at it.
--
Tom
On 04/04/17 12:48, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> Are there more debugging possibilities to find the cause for
> the laser shutdown? I still think the SFP is faulty but
> that means the whole lot is broken in some respect.
I assume you've tried the basics?
1. Cross-connect cable cleaned end-to-end
On 06/03/17 14:23, CiscoNSP List wrote:
> either a single 9906 or 9010 (Fully redundant, dual RSP), with
> NCS5K's hanging of each on as satellites...theyve also proposed dual
> A9K-MOD200-SE's with 2 x A9K-48x10G-1G-SEthose with 9Ks will know
> how much those cost...insanely expensive.
I'm
On 02/02/17 21:29, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Also c-nsp and j-nsp are not for selling equipment.
+1. The last thing anyone wants is for this list to descend some sort of
second-hand sales forum.
--
Tom
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On 23/01/17 00:55, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I hadn't realized at the time that these switches also support EVPN +
> VXLAN, which would at least be a more modern fit.
It's probably wise to start by identifying which range of Nexus switches
you're talking about.
Some are made with merchant silicon,
On 18/01/17 17:41, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> You might want to start bug scrub with 5.3.4 to see if anything might hit
> you.
Yep, what Adam said.
It also happens to be the latest release with any support for Trident cards.
(6.x and onwards drop support, including both 32 and 64-bit
On 05/01/17 21:55, Aaron wrote:
> Just want to make sure this is true that this (2) port 100 gig module
> will work with A9K-RSP-4G
Actually, I stand corrected; if Jared's suggestion wasn't enough, if you
look at the A9K-RSP-4G data sheet, it lists all of the Typhoon line
cards as being
On 05/01/17 20:54, Aaron wrote:
> I read below that they are fully compatible with
> all Cisco ASR9000 chassis, rsp's and linecards, and no upgrades required to
> chassis or cooling system.
It's a Typhoon card, so needs a suitable supervisor. It won't work with
the RSP-4G or RSP-8G, as far as I
On 11/11/16 23:58, Simon Lockhart wrote:
> Does anyone know what "IntMacTx-Er" is? Google hasn't thrown up anything
> useful.
Regardless, changing the optic, trying a different port... You don't
mention that you've tried this? Unless I've missed that. :>
> At the other end of the 100G link, the
On 12/10/16 18:06, David Wilkinson wrote:
> Should split horizon stop the loops when connecting downstream switches
> in a resilient configuration?
It can't when you've the ability to loop a broadcast frame around via
devices that aren't party to the split horizon forwarding. I'm not
certain this
On 11/10/16 12:00, David Wilkinson wrote:
> 4948 log:
> %SPANTREE-5-ROOTCHANGE: Root Changed for vlan 1234: New Root Port is
> Port-channel2. New Root Mac Address is ..0cc0
> %SPANTREE-5-ROOTCHANGE: Root Changed for vlan 1234: New Root Port is
> Port-channel2. New Root Mac Address is
On 23/09/16 18:32, Nick Cutting wrote:
> These ten gig copper SFP+ transceivers do exist - has anyone used
> them - will cisco support them? I understand that they have very
> limited distance due to the power limitations.
>
> Any field experiences shared would be greatly appreciated.
I've got
On 22/08/16 22:34, Gert Doering wrote:
> Not if you NAT the IPv4 - the NAT part enforces symmetry.
>
> Not that I'm a big fan of NAT, but it has its uses :-)
FHRPs aren't just for 'inside' interfaces. You do have to be sure to
adjust the priorities of 'inside' and 'outside' interfaces together
On 22/08/16 22:11, Gert Doering wrote:
> (but in this particular case, the issue is not so much "NAT" as
> "there are stateful firewalls in the way, that require symmetric
> traffic return from the Internet" - which makes this much harder
> than "just plain routing")
This problem exists with
On 22/08/16 18:23, Scott Voll wrote:
> Thank for your input. maybe I'm just missing something easy.
OSPFv3, EIGRP, MP-BGP... Static routes? All of these can help your edge
routers find the internal IPv6 networks on your firewalls.
Honestly, I'd suggest starting with 'How would I do IPv4
On 19/07/16 11:50, Shawn L wrote:
> I've seen ASR-9001S routers on the used market in the US for ~12K
Yeah, very similar here in the UK.
Brazilian Reals are about 30-31 cents on the USD, so you're talking ~36k
in Brazilian terms.
OP: definitely worth trying to find a 9001 or 9001-S, even if it
On 19/07/16 00:24, Estagiario wrote:
> new juniper mx-104, 4x10ge (R $ 80,000)
> used Cisco 6505+SUP720-3BXL+WS-X6704-10GE = (R $ 40,000)
I would *hope* that a second-hand ASR 9001 is less than the Juniper MX
104, and will leave you happier when doing BGP edge routing.
Investing any money into
On 14/07/16 12:09, David Wilkinson wrote:
> Can any one point me in the right direction and let me know what I have
> done wrong, I am assuming it something on the ASR configuration as QinQs
> between the 4948s taking another path without the ASR in the middle work
> fine.
I *think* you're
On 13/07/16 15:13, Jared Mauch wrote:
> There were improvements that went in 533+ which should improve your
> experience. I haven't checked if 602 hit CCO but you may want to look
> at that, or wait for 534.
Neither 6.0.2 or 5.3.4 has hit GA yet. 6.0.1 is (oddly) marked as MD
rather than ED, too.
On 13/07/16 22:52, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> On 13/Jul/16 23:46, Curtis Piehler wrote:
>
>> > So going from 5.1.X to 6.X.X will likely involve fpd upgrades?
> I've, pretty much, found an FPD update in every major release.
That has been my expectation - usually at least one component has a new
FW
On 13/07/16 20:24, Peter Kranz wrote:
> For instance, the C6800-32P10G is labelled as an 8 Port 40GE/32 Port 10GE
> module, but there is no software release yet that supports the 40G
> operational mode, nor have I seen the required CVR-4SFP-QSFP adaptor
> available.
I would expect Nick meant 40G
On 05/07/16 22:13, Satish Patel wrote:
> I found solution to fix timestamp:
>
> I have added following to as per Peter said.
>
> collect timestamp sys-uptime first
> collect timestamp sys-uptime last
>
> and change export fron ipfix to v9
>
> Now i can see correct timestamp on Nfsen :)
Thanks
On 01/07/16 18:06, Satish Patel wrote:
> what version of nfdump you are running? i can give it a try.
~$ nfdump -V
nfdump: Version: 1.6.13
Older versions never had this issue either, to be fair. But then the
only devices I've used this with are 7600s and ASR9k - no time
interpretation issues at
On 01/07/16 17:52, Satish Patel wrote:
> I have tried v9 and v10 both and same result wrong date. Here are the version
>
> nfdump-1.6.11
> nfsen-1.3.6p1
Strange, they should have good support for both formats. What's the time
the host that runs nfdump? Is it correct?
--
Tom
On 01/07/16 17:39, Satish Patel wrote:
> On nfdump i am seeing this.
>
> [root@netflow 30]# nfdump -M /data/nfsen/profiles-data/live/r1 -T -r
> nfcapd.201606301715 -a -c 10
> Date first seen Duration Proto Src IP Addr:Port
> Dst IP Addr:Port PacketsBytes Flows
> 1969-12-31
On 29/06/16 13:01, Christina Klam wrote:
> A few years back we moved to using twinax cables for our 10G uplinks in
> our DataCenters. We are now seeing input/output/CRC errors to many of
> our FEX and servers.
>
> Has anyone experienced twinax cables failing after only 2-3 years? If
> this is
On 22/06/16 21:32, Nick Cutting wrote:
> That space also "should" be non-routable over the internet - I know a
> few sneaky enterprises using it, - wasn’t that carved out for CGN?
Correct - it was specifically ear marked for CGN, so as not to conflict
with your customer's own use of RFC1918. It
On 21/06/16 23:48, Saku Ytti wrote:
> soft-reconfigure inbound will save some memory. But you're not really
> missing anything, 1GB is just not that comfortable amount of
> control-plane memory for full-table routing. Biggest gain you'll see
> is going back to 12.2S series. But you need to plan to
On 16/06/16 15:50, Robert Williams wrote:
> Also (for us anyway) carrying 'other carriers' between our sites,
> even on IOS-XR with Flow-Aware labels it doesn't balance. Reason is
> that only see the other carriers' MPLS core IPs (the real customer
> IP/port/data is even deeper inside the packet
On 15/06/16 20:16, Chuck Church wrote:
> Definitely should be running something newer, given the number of
> vulnerabilities that old IOS has in it. We've had good luck with 15.0(2)SG
> on these platforms. SG10 looks to be the latest available. That does have
> an NTP vulnerability in it from
On 07/06/16 18:01, Mack McBride wrote:
> I don't think we are going to get there.
> Current growth is about 1K prefixes per week for IPv4 and has been for 2
> years.
> So about 25 years to hit 2 million.
>
> IPv6 will max out somewhere around 3 or 4x ASN count.
> Active ASN count is still less
On 07/06/16 07:43, Gert Doering wrote:
>> > "4M(v4) / 2M(v6) - XR
>> > "10M(v4) / 5M(v6) possible in future release"
>> >
>> > So I guess you'll get your full scale Tomahawk-based RSP-880 when Cisco
>> > are good n' ready!
>
> "XXL license", per line card?
Good grief, I sincerely hope not.
On 03/06/16 15:19, Gert Doering wrote:
> ignore everything that talks about "Trident" - that's the old ASR 9000
> line card architecture, ASR9001 is "Typhoon" (the soon-to-be-old as-well
> architecture, to be replaced by "Tomahawk"), and you'll find:
And, I recalled this from the last BRKARC-2003
On 03/06/16 16:49, James Bensley wrote:
> But equally a last look-up time means prefixes used more frequently
> due to background scatter and bots just aimless scanning looking for
> open telnet ports with no other genuine traffic can be favoured over
> more "useful" / "valuable" but less
On 14/05/16 22:24, James Ventre wrote:
> The baffle kit would work just fine, we're not hurting for rack space.
> I wasn't aware it existed, thanks for the PN. It would have been nice
> if our SE suggested it when we had the ASR 1000 vs 9001 discussion.
It always helps to do your own research!
On 14/05/16 21:56, James Ventre wrote:
> In our facility, with our racks, the only way make sure they get fresh
> air from the front is to use front to back airflow boxes. The facility
> seals off the front of the rack to make sure the two don't mix. If we
> use a box with side intake, it's
On 14/05/16 20:30, James Ventre wrote:
> I've been down this road with other boxes (3750E/2811/6500), it's just
> too much of a headache.
>
> Depending on the rack and it's elevation in the rack, they often sit
> right on the threshold. The system temp of a 2811, mid rack, is 40C
> (fan speed
On 14/05/16 17:59, Satish Patel wrote:
> We have only ethernet termination from ISP multiple 10G fibers and all
> ethernet technologies running (no TDM, Frame Relay etc). We are
> running BGP, QoS, ACL and Netflow.
>
> Which router i should pick between these two, my sales person said use
>
On 14/05/16 18:35, James Ventre via cisco-nsp wrote:
> The 1006 has front to back airflow, the 9001 is side to side. I would
> really like to use the 9001, but in data centers with hot isle containment,
> I need front to back.
It uses about 250W of power - you'll be fine. If you're so concerned,
On 05/05/16 22:50, Tom Hill wrote:
> but didn't specifics.
*but didn't go into specifics.
--
Tom
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/piperm
On 03/05/16 07:47, Gert Doering wrote:
> I have a feature request to at least add a knob for "please use GUA
> next-hop!" - CSCut26765 - it was opened by a friendly Cisco developer,
> and I have no read access to it, so no idea whether it's proceeding or
> not. But if you have interest in
On 17/03/16 15:44, Drew Weaver wrote:
> get rid of them and switch to Cisco branded optics.
... Or just buy new routers, as it might be cheaper.
--
Tom
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On 14/03/16 10:07, James Bensley wrote:
> On 9 March 2016 at 20:27, Tom Hill <t...@ninjabadger.net> wrote:
>> Presumably to "prove" this (or rather, to add any evidence at all) it's
>> wipe & reinstall time for the affected 9001?
>>
> Sure I under
On 08/03/16 09:27, James Bensley wrote:
> This issue didn't show up in lab testing and we haven't been able to
> replicate it (nor have TAC). It seems to be something about the
> ordering of patching and that was the point I wanted to highlight but
> poorly eluded to.
>
> A fresh 4.3.4 install
On 27/02/16 15:58, James Bensley wrote:
> I don't want to have some PEs that were 4.3.4 and where upgraded to
> 5.3.3, others that were 5.1.3 that where upgraded to 5.3.3. I also
> don't want 4.3.4 SP10 boxes being upgraded to 5.1.3 then patched to
> SP8 etc, then upgraded to 5.3.3 etc. That's all
On 26/02/16 22:54, James Bensley wrote:
> We are not upgrading between versions only appying SMUs and service
> packs to the current version. In the case of moving from 4.3.4 to
> 5.1.3 and now moving to 5.3.3 (since that is the new extended
> maintenance release); the process is erase the box,
On 26/02/16 22:43, Phil Bedard wrote:
> Well XR 6.0 is the first linux-based version. The new “install”
> command for packages is actually a wrapper for yum, so it includes
> things like dependency verification.
>
> How you upgrade the whole OS is still a bit hazy though. They have
> said it
On 05/02/16 15:45, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
>> > Though, I've not seen anything mentioned in regards to the newer 3650/3850.
> These have double amount of shared memory compare to what 2960S/3560X have
Good to know!
--
Tom
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
