On 05/02/16 13:48, John Gaffney wrote:
> Not sure if I am looking at some microbursts, but it would seem to me
> the weak buffers in the thing cannot handle bursty traffic? We have
> dealt with microbursts before, but the switch is hardly doing 50% of
> the interface.
It's been discussed a number
On 22/01/16 06:55, Gert Doering wrote:
>> Yeah, one PSU would be enough - that'll draw about ~1300-1400W, adjusted
>> > from the spec that I've got setup elsewhere.
> Is the 9k6 PSU so expensive that it's worth running a router on a
> single feed?
I wouldn't do it, but I did know the answer. :)
On 21/01/16 09:13, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
> Maybe the cheapest would be good old ASR9K6, -now with the advent of new
> chassis these should be pretty cheap
> where each would have just a single A9K-RSP440-LT -that's 180G/slot
> upgradeable to 440G/slot (I'm pretty sure customer won't be pulling
On 20/01/16 17:07, David Wilkinson wrote:
> So I am guessing they are normal ports which can be configured to be
> cluster ports and could used normally to link up to rest of the network?
They are not, as far as I'm aware. Very much the opposite to 6500/7600
supervisors.
Certainly there are no
On 20/01/16 22:17, Peter Kranz wrote:
> Anyone have any thoughts the most cost effective chassis available currently
> that supports 100G ports? Need to route upwards of 200 Gbps and handle full
> tables, but cost is definitely a factor.
I suspect you can pick two out of the three in most cases:
On 17/11/15 11:05, Mark Tinka wrote:
> The other point, for me, is making sure easy ring topologies you would
> build on the ME3600X/ASR920 using IP/MPLS can be replicated using
> satellites. There will be a temptation not to build satellites as
> point-to-point, but rather, as rings, and you
On 03/11/15 11:28, Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
> The reason for these issues was however completely different.
>
> For the TRILL case, the whole problem was, that ASIC uses L2 headers by
> default.
> Thus the fix was trivial - one ASIC register was set to non-default value and
> the switch started to
On 01/11/15 08:04, Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
> Nowadays some other approaches are also available. For example you can use 1RU
> TRILL switches with 48 * 10G/1G SFP+ and 6 * 40G QSFP+ ports to do exactly
> what
> you're looking for - without the complexity of MPLS/VPLS or VXLAN+BGP and
> without ugly
On 19/10/15 22:05, Steve Mikulasik wrote:
> L3 is needed as well. L2TP support is a big plus too.
Would the 6840-X not make a better fit? I can't see reference to the
4500-X doing L2TP at all.
(L2PT, yes, but that's *totally* different.)
--
Tom
___
On 19/10/15 21:55, CiscoNSP List wrote:
> We run some 4500X's, but were told by our Cisco AM last year that
> it(4500X platform) is not seen as a "long term"
> propositionpotential new model?
It is *only* SUP7-E based, so there is potentially a replacement to come
with the updated supervisor
On 15/09/15 19:58, Aaron DuShey wrote:
> R1#sh int status
> Port Name Status Vlan Duplex Speed Type
> Te5/5connected299 full 10
That may be one of the strangest Cisco int outputs that I've seen in a
while. :D
--
On 25/08/15 11:28, Ivan Walker wrote:
As far as I have understood there are two real benefits:
1) PBB / MAC in MAC reduces the load on BGP as BGP only needs to worry
about the B-MACs
2) Per-flow redundancy and load balancing
As far as I understand it, #1 is correct (as per regular PBB
On 10/07/15 16:10, Lukas Tribus wrote:
I don't get the problem. Why don't you just use the loopbacks for MGM?
What prevents you from configuring MGM on the existing IP connectivity?
Yes, or this (far more sensible, simple approach).
--
Tom
___
On 10/07/15 16:03, Christopher Hunt wrote:
Is there a way I can add an IP to the DATA vlan without adding
hardware? Or is there a better way to do this?
I think you're talking about adding an IP into the middle of a tunnel,
rather than a VLAN per se.
Have you thought about getting a second
On 04/07/15 14:08, Alex K. wrote:
I know this is a Cisco list, but maybe somebody will kindly help me with
Brocade here.
FWIW, there is a specific foundry-nsp list, too:
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
If it wasn't clear, Foundry were bought by Brocade. :)
--
Tom
On 21/05/15 21:54, Lukas Tribus wrote:
802.1ah (PBB) does MAC hiding, both you need an ASR9k for that, not exactly
a cheap bridging CPE...
If you step outside the world of Cisco for but a moment, you'll find
relatively inexpensive devices like this one, which do support PBB:
On 08/04/15 00:05, Joshua Riesenweber wrote:
Is anyone else having issues with http://cs.co on IPv6? I've been
having issues with it over the last little while. It seems to be
working on v4, but the record still exists so it's causing some
grief.
Yeah, failing to connect here. IPv6 gets
On 19/02/15 16:06, Tim Durack wrote:
I notice draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16 was posted February 11, 2015.
What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite like
to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget...
There's draft support in IOS-XR 5.3.0:
On 19/02/15 15:19, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
Oh man you just made my day, full-mesh between 82 MEs that's ...bold!
Unfortunately I don't know what the limit is.
Whatever the limit is, buy some route reflectors...
--
Tom
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
On 20/02/15 11:39, Saku Ytti wrote:
Isn't Segment Routing implementation day1 IPV4+IPV6 in XR?
I thought it was. And I'd (personally) much prefer this route, too.
--
Tom
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On 07/11/14 16:12, Eric Lauriault wrote:
What do people on this list do to get 40Gbits over distances longer than
10km on Nexus 7700 or Cat SUP2T? Is there a specific 40GBASE-ER module
vendor you could recommend?
Doesn't appear to be much in the way of 40GBASE-ER4 available yet.
Although you
On 15/10/14 16:13, Harry Hambi - Atos wrote:
X2 10GBASE-SR :@ both ends
Oh SR should be safe to ignore. If you want the errors to go away, add
some attenuation via one of the various means.
This could be a longer cable, a dirtier cable, a cable that you've shut
in the rack door three or four
On 02/10/14 13:04, redscorpion69 wrote:
Does this mean it is not possible to configure policy-map directly on each
member once Bundle is configured?
I tried several ways to add QoS to physical members, but it gets refused.
Any suggestions?
Don't do it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it
On 02/10/14 13:32, redscorpion69 wrote:
I believe management requested since one of the servers is reading
bandwidth allocation from bundle port, rather than aggregate info from
all individual ports. Something stupid along those lines.
Fixing management-crazy with config-crazy is... Crazy :)
On 22/09/14 22:42, chiel wrote:
So not yet for a 6500 with sup720? I believe 15.1 is the latest on that.
Looks to be the case
7600 with SUP720 have 15.2, 15.3 15.4 releases:
On 21/09/14 22:35, Robert Hass wrote:
My problem is that these routers are visible in DHCP binding database with
very strange MAC:
10.2.2.140 0063.6973.636f.2d30.Dec 20 2014 11:44 AM
Automatic
3035.302e.3536.6138.
2e34.6132.622d.4769.
On 05/08/14 18:48, Christopher Werny wrote:
Has anyone done this before and can share some experience with it?
What are (in your opinion) the pros and cons of the aforementioned
consolidation of OSPFv2/v3 into only OSPFv3?
For the last ~4 months I've been running OSPFv3 with IPv4/IPv6 address
On 26/07/14 13:15, Rolf Hanßen wrote:
As far as I see Sup2T has no static CAM partition anymore and therefore
needs no specific maximums set.
It's included because it doesn't have any /more/ TCAM space than
3BXL/3CXL. Though the automatic allocation certainly makes life easier -
less reboots
On 27/07/14 20:12, Tom Hill wrote:
It's included because it doesn't have any /more/ TCAM space than
3BXL/3CXL. Though the automatic allocation certainly makes life easier -
less reboots for repartitioning.
Though, I'm reminded that the 6880-XL has double the TCAM space of other
S2Ts
On 15/07/14 16:46, Hari Sapkota wrote:
MSTP switches work in a region if they have similar hash values for the
region. Make sure to have identical VLAN mapping on each switches that are
to be placed in the same region.
Last I checked, this also meant creating the 'burnt in' reserved VLANs
On 07/07/14 16:08, Ruddy RAMOTHE wrote:
For configuring EFM, I have to configure an Ethernet Interface, associated to
the SHDSL Interface.
After I created a sub Ethernet Interface with the dot1Q encapsulation. That's
Work !
controller SHDSL 0/1/0
dsl-group pairs 0, 1, 2, 3 efm-bond
!
On 28/06/14 23:01, Ivan wrote:
Sorry to respond to my own post but I have some further thoughts that
may be useful. The traffic ends up being broadcast at layer 2 (dest MAC
address ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff) but the IPv4 payload is generally unicast. So
I am thinking perhaps the 4900M could be getting
On 12/06/14 18:13, Dan Brisson wrote:
Also, the Nexus line may not have features that you want in a campus,
such as layer 2 protections like dhcp snooping, DAI, etc... That said,
just make sure you know what features you need, including IPv6 features,
which without verifying, I'm guessing are
On 29/05/14 12:20, Tony wrote:
Both of these are sub-optimal solutions, so obviously we'd like to
find a way to set the outbound traffic from the ES20 card to CS0 so
that it can work how we expected it to.
Any suggestions appreciated.
Static ARP entries? If the carrier is providing your
On 29/05/14 13:01, Mark Tinka wrote:
What kind of insane requirement is this from a provider?
For their own sake, are they ready for all the support calls
since customers will always somehow find way to do things
carriers don't support (but aren't harmful to traffic flow)?
Find a new provider.
On 29/05/14 13:03, Tom Hill wrote:
ARP entries
Requests, ARP requests. Gah.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
On 30/04/14 14:19, Mark Mason wrote:
Looking at some potential edge redesign options when comparing
6880-X-XL [larger route table @ 2M IPv4] ASR1004/1006 platforms.
Thinking about leaving the edge routers to ASR's (could be more than
4 carriers - 1 per ASR) and then route-reflecting down to the
On 23/10/13 17:56, Rolf Hanßen wrote:
You should think about using SFP+ + adapter, I think there is a better
chance to re-use them after 6500.
Agreed. The Cisco OneX work in our WS-6708-3BXL (X2 - SFP+), as well as
the FlexOptix converter (their site is down currently, or I'd link you
-- but
On 17/09/13 01:18, Jared Mauch wrote:
You should look at the sup2t as an upgrade for sup2/mfsc2 at least.
Sup720 is long in the tooth.
If it's running SUP2 currently, I doubt there's an -E chassis in there
capable of running SUP2T.
And, if that's the case, I suspect that by the time you've
On 2013-06-27 08:44, Chris Welti wrote:
For those interested in the technical details, the slides for
BRKARC-3486 are up at:
http://t.co/ZncyGrhHX9
Slide 24 seems to indicate that the current Sup2T can support
440G/slot using higher clock frequencies for the fabric connections
and 4 instead of
On 16/04/13 15:44, Aaron wrote:
Thanks for the warning on the 9000v
We have thought about using it but aren't going to for the DC deployment.
(it doesn't have the (11) 10gig interfaces we need to begin with) It always
seemed attractive that it was advertised as a linecard in an asr9k with all
On 04/02/13 21:15, Chris Evans wrote:
I'm running into a situation where I have a QinQ provider who doesn't do
BPDU tunneling for protocols like OAM, LACP, etc.. Besides using an EEM
script along with SLA, are there any other built in protocols that could be
utilized to determine L2
101 - 142 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
