On 08/17/2012 02:41 PM, Chris Griffin wrote:
Fix is specifically in :
Reload SMU, SMU Pack1 for ASR9k NP, PRM and DRV fixes, Mandatory SMU
asr9k-p-4.2.1.CSCua76130.tar
But yes, that tarball should have it as well.
Thanks! That worked for me.
Cheers,
Tim
On 05.07.2012 12:45 AM, Chris Griffin wrote:
There was actually a bug that caused this for many authentic Cisco CWDM
SFPs. SMU coming for 4.2.1 sometime mid this month. May help your issue.
Don't known which SMU it is, but with the 4.2.1-Updated Tarball for
ASR9K Recommended SMU's of
Fix is specifically in :
Reload SMU, SMU Pack1 for ASR9k NP, PRM and DRV fixes, Mandatory SMU
asr9k-p-4.2.1.CSCua76130.tar
But yes, that tarball should have it as well.
Tnx
Chris
On 08/17/2012 04:48 AM, tim wrote:
On 05.07.2012 12:45 AM, Chris Griffin wrote:
There was actually a bug that
On Sunday, August 12, 2012 07:57:04 PM Mikael Abrahamsson
wrote:
Best way is to just disable DAD on core point to point
interfaces.
This issue has been there for a long time, and I'm not
sure exactly what behaviour Cisco should go for, but
disabling DAD on core interfaces is definitely a
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 06:16:33PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Friday, June 29, 2012 07:39:06 PM Florian Lohoff wrote:
The only bug we have had so far was IPv6 native going
down on an interface when looping externally e.g. DWDM
transport and not getting back up until ipv6 is removed
On Friday, June 29, 2012 07:39:06 PM Florian Lohoff wrote:
The only bug we have had so far was IPv6 native going
down on an interface when looping externally e.g. DWDM
transport and not getting back up until ipv6 is removed
from and added to the interface again. We monitor IPv6
interface
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, Mark Tinka wrote:
Last I heard from Cisco is that it is likely expected
behaviour because the RFC implies the same, i.e., DAD
conflicts are not cleared automatically (I'll be honest, I
haven't verified this claim in the RFC itself).
Best way is to just disable DAD on core
On 28.06.2012 12:29 AM, chip wrote:
GLC-T SFP's aren't supported, SFP-GE-T's are, this seemed to change
from 4.2.0 to 4.2.1, not the support, but the enforcement of it.
Between 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 the support for some of our third party (CWDM)
SFPs got lost, that means:
show controller
State:
On (2012-07-04 11:24 +0200), tim wrote:
If anybody has a fix (which does not involve new hardware ;)) please let
me know.
http://www.flexoptix.net/flexbox-v2-transceiver-programmer.html
--
++ytti
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
There was actually a bug that caused this for many authentic Cisco CWDM
SFPs. SMU coming for 4.2.1 sometime mid this month. May help your issue.
Tnx
Chris
On 7/4/2012 5:24 AM, tim wrote:
On 28.06.2012 12:29 AM, chip wrote:
GLC-T SFP's aren't supported, SFP-GE-T's are, this seemed to change
If Cisco can't get it right for their own optics, should they be trusted to
lock them.
Jared Mauch
On Jul 4, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Chris Griffin cgrif...@ufl.edu wrote:
There was actually a bug that caused this for many authentic Cisco CWDM SFPs.
SMU coming for 4.2.1 sometime mid this month.
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 09:56:06PM +, MKS wrote:
We are in the process of evaluating the ASR9K as a next gen platform
I would like to ask you, what was most surprising about the platform,
e.g. I expected that to be there, or this is a strange limitation.
Does the ASR9K halv the tcam
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, MKS wrote:
I would like to ask you, what was most surprising about the platform,
e.g. I expected that to be there, or this is a strange limitation. Does
the ASR9K halv the tcam space like 7600 when enabling uRPF?
Distribute-list only accepts access-list, not route-map
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:26 AM, MKS rekordmeis...@gmail.com 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
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 09:56:06PM +, MKS wrote:
Does the ASR9K halv the tcam space like 7600 when enabling uRPF?
A 7600 with Sup720 or higher doesn't do that either...
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
Would anyone know what is the max limit on eBGP / iBGP sessions on RSP-4G
please?
adam
___
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 27/06/2012 23:29, chip wrote:
Not being able to insert rpl policy without having to re-do the whole
policy. Yes, I know you can edit it with the built-in nano, emacs, or
vi editors, but that's kinda difficult to script, eh? Also, you must
have your TERM evironment var set to vt100, if
Using ACLs to restrict telnet/ssh access gets strange if you use
layer-4 port definitions in your acl, just stick to source prefix.
you can use prefix sets for this, no?
No, prefix sets are part of RPL, routing policy. They cannot be used
for limiting access or deny traffic, it's all about
We are in the process of evaluating the ASR9K as a next gen platform
I would like to ask you, what was most surprising about the platform,
e.g. I expected that to be there, or this is a strange limitation.
Does the ASR9K halv the tcam space like 7600 when enabling uRPF?
Regards
MKS
I've been pretty happy with it overall, so far.
The things I don't like:
Not being able to insert rpl policy without having to re-do the whole
policy. Yes, I know you can edit it with the built-in nano, emacs, or
vi editors, but that's kinda difficult to script, eh? Also, you must
have your
Also,
If you're doing bgp signaled vpls, you may find issues with MTU,
this will help:
l2vpn
autodiscovery bgp
signaling-protocol bgp
mtu mismatch ignore
I haven't quite got it figured out whether this is a problem with C or
J from looking through RFC'sbut thar be dragons.
On Wed,
You can run one eigrp instance.
Inviato da iPhone
Il giorno 27/giu/2012, alle ore 23:56, MKS rekordmeis...@gmail.com ha scritto:
We are in the process of evaluating the ASR9K as a next gen platform
I would like to ask you, what was most surprising about the platform,
e.g. I expected that
22 matches
Mail list logo
