We have been running the fix since the beginning of this week with no
issues.
Would recommend you check out the other available SMUs for 4.3.4
proactively.
tv
On 9/5/2014 7:56 AM, Praveen Sharma (psharma) wrote:
Do you have the 434 SMU for CSCum44940 (AA08480) installed on the device?
On 12/6/2013 10:25 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
We received our first pair of 4500X switches, and proceeded to try to
prepare them for deployment. They came up OK on console access, we got
a very basic configuration setup, linked them together, and did an
initial VSS pairing.
With that successful, we
On 8/29/2013 9:12 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Same here - the RP2 in the ASR1001 will scale well when you
run as many full feeds as you want.
It's not an RP2...more of a RP2 lite :) Also note the memory
restriction on the 1001 compared to a RP2 system.
As a general thought, stay away from RP1
On 3/11/2013 7:05 AM, Andrew Miehs wrote:
Hi all,
Was just doing a little bit of reading and had a look at
http://rs2.swissix.ch/cgi-bin/bgplg?cmd=show+ip+bgp+source-asreq=15169
Specifically:
flags destination gateway lpref med aspath origin
*1.1.1.0/24
On 3/11/2013 9:37 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 11/03/13 13:42, Tony Varriale wrote:
engineer worth their salt does not use this.
Maybe. But a lot of people *have* used it, because I've seen it when
doing webauth logins e.g. in airports, train networks, etc. And by
definition, the people
On 3/11/2013 9:49 AM, Sandy Breeze wrote:
On 11/03/13 14:37, Phil Mayers wrote:
Cisco wrote docs suggesting that people did this:
Enter the IP address of the controller's virtual interface. You
should enter a fictitious, unassigned IP address, such as 1.1.1.1.
On 2/19/2013 2:57 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Eric A Louie wrote:
I've run out of port capacity on my 7206VXR and need to go to the
next router
or put in another 7206VXR side-by-side.
Any recommendations on what to use if I were to replace my existing
7206VXR with
another
On 12/16/2012 5:59 AM, Robert Williams wrote:
Hi, I'll try to go into some additional detail on the traffic and other router
config elements now.
The traffic is basically made up of a randomly generated packet which is almost
identical to the below.
The 'random' element is that the source
On 12/16/2012 10:49 AM, Robert Williams wrote:
Hi,
I'm sensing a lot of frustration / anger / hatred for NLB, having never really
used it myself I'll just back away from that quietly :)
Unfortunately the test is valid because the situation actually arose when a
Windows NLB cluster went
On 11/22/2012 2:11 PM, . . wrote:
Hi,
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps708/products_qanda_item09186a00809a7673.shtml
Thanks, that link helps a bit, but still a bit unclear on things. =) Assuming I
don't need the performance and the 30 Mpps of sup2t is fine for a centralized
On 11/3/2012 8:31 AM, zhangyongshun wrote:
I find a problem thatunable to ping internet(for example 8.8.8.8) form
FWSM(I have been ssh to FWSM) recently.But any business is worked fine
through FWSMtraffic.
and I can ping direct interface with FWSM outside interface.
If FWSM have local security
On 10/30/2012 7:48 AM, Matthew Huff wrote:
Do you have pim or igmp snooping turned on?
Without a layer 3 multicast router configured, the 6509 will probably shunt
the traffic. Setup a SVI interface on that vlan and enable pim dense mode. If you don't
want multicast to pass the layer 3
On 10/24/2012 1:23 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2012-10-23 22:06 -0500), Tony Varriale wrote:
None of GBIC will do half duplex IIRC. And, they won't do subrate.
The negotiate is there to appease the other end if it tries.
This is painfully common misconception. So some, even serious SPs tend
On 10/23/2012 1:40 PM, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
Hi all,
Running up against an odd issue where we have a 3550 with an LX GBIC trying to
talk to a copper port on an ME3600 with a media converter in the middle. The
ME3600 side always shows as up; we disabled fault passthrough on the MC. The
LX
On 6/13/2012 8:01 AM, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
I have a requirement for a 1G/10G access switch also for a meet-me
room project I am working on, and the 4500-X ticks all the boxes -
except for the MPLS capability. The lack of this feature means I will
likely have to backhaul data back to an MPLS
On 5/20/2012 3:36 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2012-05-19 22:25 -0500), Tony Varriale wrote:
If you follow the rules, those are the easiest, most non-eventful
events ever. I've done over 100 and had no issues.
This is curious statement, it implies that if you are operating devices as
per
On 5/20/2012 2:49 PM, chris stand wrote:
The ability to reboot a 5K by itself, in fact you can upgrade hardware
this way, vs 3750x stack is a worthwhile positive point.
The ability to separate by distance ... say 100 feet if needed a 5K
from its peer ... another positive point.
What about
On 5/20/2012 9:25 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
Browsing cisco.com I found EOS/EOL notices for a few of the 4500E chassis.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but weren't these released in 2010?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps4324/eol_c51-706059.html
Nah. They are 5-6
On 5/19/2012 6:21 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2012-05-18 14:55 -0400), David Coulson wrote:
Does anyone have any solid experience with 3750X switches, or
stacking in a datacenter in general? I've seen plenty of stacks for
We've had quite many 3750 stacks, and we do see more problems in them than
On 5/18/2012 1:55 PM, David Coulson wrote:
In a datacenter environment, we typically deploy 4948 top-of-rack
switches with L2 uplinks to our 6500 core - Systems get connections
into two different switches and rely on OS NIC bonding (mostly Linux)
to support switch failures. Switches running
On 5/19/2012 6:47 AM, Lee wrote:
On 5/19/12, Saku Yttis...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2012-05-18 14:55 -0400), David Coulson wrote:
Does anyone have any solid experience with 3750X switches, or
stacking in a datacenter in general? I've seen plenty of stacks for
We've had quite many 3750 stacks, and
On 5/19/2012 7:03 PM, scott owens wrote:
How about Nexus 5010s.
^ +10 other than a missing odd feature. The Nexus 55xx are
purty nice boxen and have HA features that the 375x only dream about.
tv
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
On 5/9/2012 8:45 AM, Matthew Huff wrote:
We have a pair of Cisco 7204VXR with NPE-G2 running 15.1(4)M3. We are using
default timers for the HSRP interfaces, and we are seeing nightly HSRP state
changes. Not a lot, but 1-2 a night. This appears to only have started
recently. We are looking at
On 4/30/2012 11:10 AM, Matthew Huff wrote:
If you need the full 1GB for VPN, yes, the 5585-X with SSP10 will be the
best bet. It will probably be on the close order of 20k though.
Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577
OTA Management
On 2/16/2012 1:16 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
There are a lot of gotchas with the FWSM that would make them less
than ideal for a new deployment (10Gb/s throughput, poor IPv6
performance, ACL/memory partition limits that are not always well
documented and fun to deal with at 3 AM, etc).
On 2/17/2012 4:22 AM, Peter Boekelaar wrote:
We noticed with 40K + ace entries, changes are becoming rather slow 4, 5
minutes wait before de rules are downloaded to de network processors.
That's ACE or ACL?
Either way, that's a very convoluted security policy. Or, the blade is
in a poor
On 12/1/2011 3:52 PM, Mark Mason wrote:
We also just labbed a VS-S720-10G running 122-33.SXJ1 and were able to shut a
slot down without a module installed. Unfortunately we ALSO were able to
incorrectly install a WS-X6748-GE-TX and cause the 3 second bus disruption.
Anyone else run into this?
On 11/22/2011 8:41 AM, Mark Mason wrote:
iscussions. I expect that packets leaving the DC will hit the HSRP active,
perform the route lookup and exit via the best path BGP has selected (and/or
the best path my PfR setup has installed). Does anyone see any gotcha
What does the network look
On 11/14/2011 1:01 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 11:15 -0600, Mark Mason wrote:
Question of the day...
Why turn on netflow in a 6k w/ SUP720-10G if netflow in 6k (minus the
SUP2T) is notoriously not good?
Because it's better than nothing? :-)
Ever use a GPS that takes you to
On 11/14/2011 4:57 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
e a GPS that takes you to the wrong place?:)
pfc3 netflow is fine if you need to measure traffic ratios or protocol
spread. Its, uh, built-in sampling mechanism means that although it's
unsuitable for some purposes, it's completely fine for others.
On 8/29/2011 8:58 AM, Jeff Bacon wrote:
It's un-called-for, certainly.
Unfortunate to hear that. It was brief and to the point. If a 6500 NAT
knowledgeable person would have been hired, they would have steered
clear of it. Design around it.
It's the problem of some smaller firms,
On 8/29/2011 12:05 PM, Matthew Huff wrote:
It took 3 weeks with TAC including a network sniffer trace file to prove to the
tech it didn't work. When he escalated it to backline BU engineering, he found
out it wasn't supported. It isn't even well known within Cisco.
A lot of these things
likely we will either replace the entire hardware or leave it the way it is.
Having to increase latency to add monitoring is the tail wagging the dog.
Do you have the tools in place to comment on the latency it will
generate and the impact and loss of revenue to your customers?
As far as
On 8/27/2011 4:31 PM, Matthew Huff wrote:
If it was made apparent, could you point to any public documentation that
states that? I've scoured Cisco's site, google, and mail archives, and can't
find any mention (other than specific caveats) that state that NDE and hardware
assisted nat are not
On 8/26/2011 11:25 AM, Matthew Huff wrote:
We fully expected to be able to use hardware assisted NAT and NDE to monitor
the traffic.
Why?
The netflow output we get is random, sporadic and very incomplete.
This is a very well known limitation.
After dealing with our Sales team and TAC, we
On 8/16/2011 8:47 PM, Dan Letkeman wrote:
Hello,
I have a remote location, where I have a 3560 which connects to our
main location via a wireless bridge and goes into a 3560G. The
wireless bridge has approximately 70mbps throughput. This remote
location has about 12 7962 phones, and for the
On 8/15/2011 4:38 PM, -Hammer- wrote:
Not sure about what everyone else is recommending but our solution
(with several hundred B2B tunnels now) was simply to make it policy
NEVER to run 1918 address space in the tunnel. We usually tell peers
that they must provide public IP space which will
On 8/3/2011 3:56 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Nonsense. With half-duplex, you'll get about 7-8 megs of traffic on the
link before it starts petering out. Collisions are a normal part of half
duplex operation, so if you see a bunch of collisions in the interface
counters, there's nothing to worry
On 7/24/2011 6:29 PM, Eric Hileman wrote:
Is Performance Routing, PfR a dead duck? Did they stop developing it? Or
does it suck so bad no one uses it...
I'm speaking in the context of a multihomed content provider optimizing wan
traffic. But any info is welcome :)
On 7/23/2011 3:01 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 22:22 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Just because everybody else does it is a no-go in my book :-) - we
currently have a design similar to your current design, that is, all
core routers (8) are full-meshed, and all edge routers in a
On 7/19/2011 1:11 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 07/19/2011 02:25 AM, Tony Varriale wrote:
Well I had the pleasure of watching one boot last night and I'm not very
optimistic as to my original statement. No word back from Cisco yet to
confirm.
How long did it take to boot? Was it faster than
On 7/19/2011 1:36 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 07/19/2011 02:23 AM, Tony Varriale wrote:
Well, neither of those (I'm sure of the 6708 and almost 100% on the
6716) actually have a CFC and the DFC is not a FRU. Hence, the issue.
You're correct that both the 6708 and 6716 do not come with / cannot
On 7/20/2011 2:09 PM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:28:46 +0100, you wrote:
Well... just because something is easy for Cisco doesn't mean they would
do it. They might believe that IOS XE on the ISRs would eat into the
market for ASR, so they don't do it.
The ISR G2s
On 7/18/2011 5:39 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 12/07/11 00:25, Saku Ytti wrote:
I don't see any reason why technically you couldn't just rip out DFC
from 6708
and run it as centralized card. Maybe the DFC itself is soldered in
making this
unpractical or maybe centralized performance was deemed
On 7/17/2011 5:10 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:12:32AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
It's unlikely to be based on NX-OS. However, XE == IOS running as process
on linux and -modular == IOS running as process on QNX, so it could
relatively easily be a variety of one of
On 7/11/2011 1:26 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
mmh. Is this IOS? Or IOS XE? I thought the Sup2T was supposed to
ship with something modularish?
I suspect that the new software will be further away from IOS and closer
to NX-OS and/or IOS-XE.
I mean, what would the point given all the new stuff?
On 7/11/2011 5:00 PM, Robert Hass wrote:
The 6708 card isn't mentioned elsewhere on the page. Specifically not in
Table 6. DFC4 Field Upgradable Linecard. Anybody know what that means?
Do we have to buy new 6908 cards instead? Or will there be a field
upgrade?
As 6708 is DFC-only (same as 6716)
On 7/11/2011 5:00 PM, Robert Hass wrote:
The 6708 card isn't mentioned elsewhere on the page. Specifically not in
Table 6. DFC4 Field Upgradable Linecard. Anybody know what that means?
Do we have to buy new 6908 cards instead? Or will there be a field
upgrade?
As 6708 is DFC-only (same as 6716)
On 7/11/2011 5:21 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 00:00 +0200, Robert Hass wrote:
The 6708 card isn't mentioned elsewhere on the page. Specifically
not in Table 6. DFC4 Field Upgradable Linecard. Anybody know what
that means? Do we have to buy new 6908 cards instead? Or will
On 7/15/2011 9:15 PM, Renelson Panosky wrote:
I have 6x Nexus 5k. I have been upgrading the NX-OS in all of them. I've
done all of the using TFTP with no issues but there is one of the that keep
giving me the same error over and over.
Here is the error.(TFTP get operation failed:Undefined
On 7/6/2011 11:08 AM, Jason Gurtz wrote:
A firm has proposed creating a GRE tunnel between two datacenters (using a
3750X stack at each) to create the spanned vlans needed for VMWare
failover application.
Clearly there is tunnel overhead but I sense there are other failure modes
here that
On 6/28/2011 3:55 AM, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
Hey everyone,
We just received our 3560X and no console cables included at all, is
this new policy for new platforms?
I mean no RS-232-RJ45 or new mini-usb console cable at all.
Yes. That is an orderable part number now. And, it's not free.
On 6/21/2011 12:31 PM, ryanL wrote:
there is indeed ISSU for VSS, even with single supervisor models.
There is indeed no ISSU on 6500. What you are referencing is FSU or eFSU.
I would suggest you get a product brief from your Cisco team or your
preferred vendor/reseller.
i
recently
Btw - i would recommend using both 10g ports on the sup720 10g for the
vss links.
Yes, this is super recommended. There is more than the obviously
benefit of using these links.
tv
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On 6/17/2011 1:51 PM, Murphy, William wrote:
We are running VSS for distribution layer switching in a campus environment
and have been quite pleased with it... Benefits for us are simplification,
faster convergence and better performance (distribution of traffic)... No
more STP blocking ports,
The new software should now support dual supervisor per chasis and
soon with the sup 2t 4 chasis!
Please make sure you understand the failure scenarios and how the dual
sups actually work. It probably doesn't work as you think it should.
We are only running IPv4 on our boxes - (entereprise
On 6/16/2011 5:05 PM, Mike G wrote:
Hey all,
We're looking at implementing VSS between our distribution/core switches,
which are currently in a high-availability configuration using HSRP.
From my research so far, the system is straight-forward and the limitations
and requirements are fairly
On 6/3/2011 3:30 PM, Jeff Bacon wrote:
I am, however, left with one mystery.
How can the Cisco docs on a FWSM claim a 30-usec latency when clearly it
isn't capable of that, at least not in any configuration that I'm aware
of? Granted that it's all lies, damn lies, and marketing material, but
On 6/2/2011 3:09 PM, Jeff Bacon wrote:
Hi folks -
So, in an attempt to address some fun issues with NAT I'm having with my
6500s, I'm considering resorting to the use of an FWSM as a fancy
specialized NAT device - call it a complicated hairpin, if you will (one
VRF is on one side of the FWSM,
1. Do you know if this is all the attributes that a CSS's can route traffic
based on? From the CSS config guide exert below i.e. L3, L4 and L5
* destination IP
* destination port
* protocol
* domain
* context path
There are more.
2. What about other
On 4/26/2011 9:23 AM, Leigh Harrison wrote:
Main feature we use is MPLS
Which MPLS feature(s)?
and we need 10G port density
How dense? What's your business?
Is a 6500 still the best bang for your buck or does the lack of anything
over 10G ports hold it back?
If you need truly dense 10g,
On 4/15/2011 1:07 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
yesterday, one of our customers tried to move two GigE-on-fiber circuits
from a Catalyst 4507 to a new Nexus 5548.
The other end terminates on some carrier gear (and is then multiplexed
in whatever ways across the city).
After moving the circuit,
On 4/15/2011 4:24 PM, quinn snyder wrote:
dug through some kit -- found sfp-ge-s and a 62.5um cable.
same interfaces being used.
link came up for me. again -- this is with n5000, not n5500, but i
wouldn't think too great of a difference?
Although the UPCs/ASICs are different (gatos vs carmel)
On 3/23/2011 3:57 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
The N7k is a nice platform in many ways. Far higher performance,
better software and some interesting features like mcLAG. It would be
a great fit for us, *if* it had the MPLS feature set. It doesn't == a
shame (for us)
Phil, looks like Cisco is
On 3/31/2011 1:29 PM, John Snow wrote:
Hi I am fairly new to fwsm, but what I need to do is upgrade from 3.1 to a 3.2
release.
I don't have a spare blade to test this on so I will be upgrading on prod on
the fly. I am putting a plan together before I make the change to avoid as much
downtime
On 3/28/2011 11:05 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Packet sizes are believed to be roughly equivalent between both 3845's
because our upstream is just preffing some subnets toward one path than
another. I checked everything CEF/interface related on both routers and it
all appears to be correct and
On 3/28/2011 3:09 PM, Tim Stevenson wrote:
For one thing you could provide up to 256 10G links between two boxes,
something you could not do with STP.
Is this 16 links active per path? If so, what's the LACP game being played?
Tim and/or Lincoln, I was hoping you could comment on a
On 3/28/2011 9:14 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
We have two 3845's as border routers, each with three GigE interfaces (one
facing upstream, the other downstream, the third facing the other 3845).
The first 3845 has a typical packet-size mix (residential/business Internet)
is consistently maxing out at
On 3/28/2011 8:22 PM, Bayasgalan Bayantur wrote:
I'm working on a solution where we will be setting up 40 virtual web servers
on a single server using Linux Redhat and VMWare .
Unfortunately, we only have 3 free public IP addresses to use, so I need to
have a basically a single public IP which
On 3/23/2011 3:57 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
Why would I bother listening to details/timelines from them? They've
been wildly, wildly inaccurate in the past.
True. Some things (like Sup2T) are worse than others.
At this point, Cisco could tell me it's out next week and I wouldn't
base
I've heard very shortly from Cisco before. Frankly, they've got no
belief credits with me. Unless and until I see it, it's vapour.
We all have. If you are considering the platform and need those
features, get a hold of your partner and/or Cisco account team.
Unfortunately I can't share
On 3/21/2011 6:22 PM, Thomason, Simon wrote:
Hey All,
Was just wondering if anyone has had much luck using generic copper sfp in a
nexus 5020? I have run into an issue with a generic SFP will not bring the port
up on my 5k but a Cisco one work first time.
I do know that Cisco will say to use
On 3/21/2011 6:33 PM, Mack McBride wrote:
The 6500 is still quite good if you don't have high throughput requirements
(80G).
Between that and the many times delay of the Sup2T, Nexus is a $1B
business now.
The newer Cisco platforms don't do full routing and switching well.
Which ones?
The
It's entirely possible that we just have a very weird mix of
requirements...
Care to share a couple of them?
Having said that, I won't be sorry to see the back of the crappy CPU
and 12.2S IOS train ;o)
Can I add to your list: eFSU, OIR, fabs and sups living together and
punting to CPU
On 3/14/2011 11:25 PM, Brad Hedlund (brhedlun) wrote:
Hi Chuck,
The switch not being upgraded will keep the vPC connections UP, just as you
witnessed when your switch rebooted due to fan issues. However...
Prior to the recent 5.0(2) release, IF your vPC connections were reset for some
other
On 2/4/2011 10:22 AM, Mack McBride wrote:
The most comparable for the 7600 is the ASR 9K but the cost differential is
significant.
The Nexus 7000 is supposed to replace the 6500 for an aggregation switch but
the cost
On a gigabit basis, the N7K is cheaper and has many more working
On 2/4/2011 11:23 AM, Daniel Holme wrote:
I wouldn't say Nexus is bleeding edge, it's been around for a while now!
Then main drawback for me is MPLS support, but I believe it's coming.
--Daniel Holme
Yup, probably the single most requested feature that I see at this point.
tv
On 2/4/2011 2:40 PM, Rhino Lists wrote:
I am currently running a Cisco 7206vxr with NPE-G2 and 2GB. I am peaking at
200M of Internet traffic on one of the GigE ports with 40K pps aggregate.
CPU over the last 72 hours looks like the following:
On 2/4/2011 4:27 PM, Mack McBride wrote:
The cost per gigabit is not at parity yet for low gigabit rates.
If you are talking about 6500 vs N7K (which is what I thought we were
discussing), then the N7K is cheaper. And, so is the service. Just
simple math.
The requirement for full IPv4
- Original Message -
From: Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com
To: cisco-nsp cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:12 AM
Subject: [c-nsp] Cheap switch that runs same version of NX-OS that the nexus
7000 runs?
Are there any cheap/old switches out there that
- Original Message -
From: Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com
To: Cisco NSPs cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 5:50 PM
Subject: [c-nsp] Basic Etherchannel Question
Just wondering what the general consensus was on hard coding vs.
negotiating
Wow that's amazing. I think that's outside the normal auto-detect range
too!
tv
- Original Message -
From: Pete Templin peteli...@templin.org
To: Terry Rupeni rupen...@usp.ac.fj
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco
- Original Message -
From: Jose Madrid jmadr...@gmail.com
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:08 PM
Subject: [c-nsp] Problem with Cisco 4900M and SFP-H10GB-CU1M-G cable
I have a Cisco 4900M with the OneX adapter module (CVR-X2-SFP10G). I am
trying to
And the SFP rev?
tv
- Original Message -
From: Jose Madrid
To: Tony Varriale
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Problem with Cisco 4900M and SFP-H10GB-CU1M-G cable
I upgraded the device to 12.2(54)SG
- Original Message -
From: Terry Rupeni rupen...@usp.ac.fj
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:14 PM
Subject: [c-nsp] Cisco Catalyst 6509-E 4000w P/S
Hi All,
We just bought a new 6509-E with 4000w P/S. The specs say it requires a 23
A/240V Input is this
- Original Message -
From: Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de
To: Leonardo Gama Souza leonardo.so...@nec.com.br
Cc: RAZ MUHAMMAD raz.muham...@gmail.com; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] RES: Outbound Load balancing using eBGP
- Original Message -
From: Sachin Gupta sagu...@cisco.com
To: Antonio Soares amsoa...@netcabo.pt; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Catalyst 4500 E-Series
The +E chassis has new mux-buffers to support 48G/slot in the redundant
Could be.
What's the rest of the file and sh proc cpu say? I'd find out what's eating
all that memory first.
Also, your original message stated something about collisions. Resolved?
Related?
tv
- Original Message -
From: Antonio Soares amsoa...@netcabo.pt
To: 'Jared Mauch'
- Original Message -
From: Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 6509 Linecard RAM
On (2010-08-27 13:40 +), C and C Dominte wrote:
Does anyone know how to view the RAM that is currently installed on each
As you can guess, a lot of that info in the slide deck is either incorrect
or pushed.
I would guess the 2T is going to show up next year. Get with your account
team if you need something more specific.
What issues are you having on the 04 and 08s?
tv
- Original Message -
From:
Assuming the secondary is running well and you are confident the config is
correct, you should make it active, then perform your upgrade procedure on
the primary.
There is no failover preemption. So, if the secondary is active and the
primary comes up dead or blows up, no harm to your
I assume you have clients on the router having the issues. Have you
verified you are seeing the IGMP membership report? Another troubleshooting
step is to do a manual join on an interface (downstream/loopback/whatever)
and see what you get.
How about some sh ip mroute group_ip count and sh
- Original Message -
From: Church, Charles charles.chu...@harris.com
To: nsp-cisco cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:35 PM
Subject: [c-nsp] Nexus 5xxx VPC peer keepalives
Anyone,
Coming up on a design issue with our upcoming first deployment of Nexus
5010s
- Original Message -
From: Eric Magutu emag...@gmail.com
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net; Cisco certification
ci...@groupstudy.com
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:45 PM
Subject: [c-nsp] ASA NAT problem
Hi,
Apologies for the cross posting.
I have a problem with a NAT on my network.
- Original Message -
From: scott owens scottowen...@gmail.com
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 5:35 PM
Subject: [c-nsp] nexus 5xx vpc peer keepalives
Tony,
Read this as well ( it talks about NOT using the mgmt0 for peer keep
alives
) - we are trying this
- Original Message -
From: scott owens scottowen...@gmail.com
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 5:35 PM
Subject: [c-nsp] nexus 5xx vpc peer keepalives
Tony,
Read this as well ( it talks about NOT using the mgmt0 for peer keep
alives
) - we are trying this
Of course!
tv
- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey Ollie j...@ocjtech.us
To: cisco-nsp cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:43 PM
Subject: [c-nsp] CSS 11501 and non-HTTP protocols
Is the CSS 11501 able to load balance non-HTTP protocols like IMAPS?
For IMAPS I
- Original Message -
From: Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de
To: William Jobs wllm...@gmail.com
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 10G Ethernet Module
(Regarding your question, I can't say. We decided to go for 6500
chassis and
They've had this problem across many product lines for over a year now
(4900, 6500, ASA, Nexus, 3560s, etc). We keep hearing that management is
working on it.
Unfortunately, we've already had a few customers that can't tolerate 4
months lead time, canceled orders and went with the
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Huff mh...@ox.com
To: 'Jeff Bacon' ba...@walleyesoftware.com; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] NPE-G1 / G2 performance
What type of interfaces do you need? IF just Ethernet, why not look at a
1 - 100 of 248 matches
Mail list logo
