[c-nsp] clustered switches and access-class

Hello, I have noticed that when switches are clustered using the "cluster xxx" mechanism, the cluster members cannot have "access-class xx in" configured without breaking the cluster rcommand functionality. Is there a way to restrict telnet to these cluster members? Thanks, C. Flav

Re: [c-nsp] traffic shape on 87x/88x/18xx SVI interfaces

>Hi, > >it's not working, have to use traffic policing instead of traffic >shaping on SVI. No way around that. How incredibly lame. Hardware limitation? C. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listin

Re: [c-nsp] traffic shape on 87x/88x/18xx SVI interfaces

- Original Message From: Shimol Shah To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 10:24:50 AM Subject: Re: [c-nsp] traffic shape on 87x/88x/18xx SVI interfaces GTS is the old way of doing Qos. It is not supported in the CEF path. MQC is the new and recommended way. With G

[c-nsp] traffic shape on 87x/88x/18xx SVI interfaces

Hello, We are trying to do a simple "traffic-shape rate" command on a variety of router platforms (871,881,1811) and have determined that the traffic-shape does not actually take effect unless "no ip route-cache cef" is applied to the Fe4 interface (or Fe0 or Fe1 on the 1811). Traffic shape c

Re: [c-nsp] Advertising routes Automation

I don't see where he says he is de-agregating netblocks?? It sounds to me that he is selectively announcing to a specific upstream a specific route, so he is not wasting any precious network resources and there is no need to get excited about filtering ;) I am assuming you are using BGP, which

Re: [c-nsp] NPE-G1 vs NPE-G2; is it a scam?

>Found what I was talking about...this may explain things: >https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2007-April/03.html Hello, Thanks for the pointers. I had found this after the concensus call to check the archives. We will run some stress tests to compare. C. ___

[c-nsp] NPE-G1 vs NPE-G2; is it a scam?

We have had two "upgrades" on a 7204VXR platform where we went from a G1 to a G2 controller. Case A is a pretty straightforward BGP with 2 full feeds, 400Mbps aggregate traffic @72,000pps. Case A upgraded to 12.4XD train from 12.3 mainline Case B is a L2TP LNS, aggregating around 3000 PPPoE

Re: [c-nsp] STP in L2TPv3

>I saw this across a few router platforms; so I'm guessing in may me embedded >in the base IOS code: >* 7200 >* 1800 >* 2600 How incredibly annoying. Is there any L2 tunneling means that will allow for STP packets tunneled over a L3 network? C. _

Re: [c-nsp] STP in L2TPv3

>I had a case open with Cisco on this same issue pending for 6 months or so >then I finally closed the ticket; what I saw was basically the STP pkts was >>arriving out-of-order due to fragmentation; the remote end never get STP >updates as such. > >'ve been meaning to test this with EoMPLS o

[c-nsp] STP in L2TPv3

I am having a devil of a time getting spanning-tree packets to work over a functional L2TPv3 tunnel. I can see arp, cdp, SSDP, and all sorts of other garbage traffic over the link, DHCP works, Internet, the works. However, if I connect a catalyst switch on each end and send STP, I do not see

[c-nsp] PPPoE LNS

We currently use the 7204VXR platform with NPE-G1 controllers to terminate PPPoE over L2TP. We are able to handle 5k subscribers @ 80,000pps before the CPU is beyond useability. We are looking to move to a G2 controller, however our experience with G2 controllers vs CPU/pps rates compared to t

Re: [c-nsp] Out of order queuing

>Is a different load balancing algorithm possible here?  Perhaps flow-based >load-balancing instead of packet-based would solve the problem.  Less >throughput>achieved per flow but it should balance itself out when you factor >in all the other flows.  Plus no out-of-order packets.>>Justin Hell

[c-nsp] Out of order queuing

Hello, We have a customer with load-balanced path to us. TCP throughput is affected by some out-of-order packets, and we were looking for a way to queue the interface in order to try and mitigate this. Is it possible to use any queueing mechanism to re-order packets received from this customer b

[c-nsp] 7200VXR for Session Border Controller

Hello, We are looking to deploy a SBC for SIP subscribers and are looking at using a 7204VXR. We are not needing transcoding facilities but simply forwarding SIP INVITES and signalling to and from a SIP server to subscribers. The documentation regarding the setup of such a system is terse, there

Re: [c-nsp] IOS for 7204VXR-G1 + MPF

>Vague recollection is that the general consensus is >MPF is a feature best avoided. There will be little >future support. Cisco has EOL'd MPF Hello, MPF is out. Noted. What is the best-practice IOS for use in a PPPoE over L2TP environment? Thanks again, C. Flav Sent from my BlackBerry

[c-nsp] IOS for 7204VXR-G1 + MPF

Hi all, we currently utilize Cisco 7204VXR routers for PPPoE aggregation and are interested in testing the MPF feature. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/docs/ios/12_3/12_3y/12_3ya8/MPF123YM.html A little while ago we tested c7200-i12s-mz.123-14.YM12.bin and had to do an emergency rollback s