On Friday, June 10, 2011 11:51:03 PM Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
> I also messed around with IS-IS, in place of OSPFv3, but
> IS-IS's constant complaining about address family
> mismatches where there were none got annoying pretty
> quickly ;)
Sounds like you had a single topology going, which is
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
> I can do SVIs, but that starts to get away from the topology that's in
> production today. If I need to, I can set up a span port on the 6509s to a
> machine that's running Wireshark.
A SPAN port was what I was getting at with the SVIs
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
Perhaps look at the neighbor state through the 10 and 30 second
windows and see if you can see what state is taking the most amount of
time.
Are you exchanging a lot of routes? Maybe the back and forth of many
DBD packets are faster to be acknowledged
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
> All:
>
> I have a fairly extensive IPv6 test bed set up in my lab, using OSPFv3 as my
> IGP, and one thing I noticed is that the OSPFv3 adjacencies on links between
> Cisco (6509-Es, Sup720/3BXLs, 12.2SXH code) and Juniper (M7is, JUNOS
>
All:
I have a fairly extensive IPv6 test bed set up in my lab, using OSPFv3
as my IGP, and one thing I noticed is that the OSPFv3 adjacencies on links
between Cisco (6509-Es, Sup720/3BXLs, 12.2SXH code) and Juniper (M7is,
JUNOS 10.3R1.9) devices seem to take about 3x longer to come up,
than b
5 matches
Mail list logo
