Re: Catalyst 4500 listening on TCP 6154 on all interfaces

On May 7, 2018, at 2:58 PM, Jay Farrell via NANOG > wrote: I saw that list, but understood the numbers there to be IDS signature numbers, rather than port numbers. Am I misreading something? No, you are correct. As Niels Bakker pointed out that is a

Re: Catalyst 4500 listening on TCP 6154 on all interfaces

I saw that list, but understood the numbers there to be IDS signature numbers, rather than port numbers. Am I misreading something? On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Curtis, Bruce wrote: > Some Cisco devices use 6154 for ypxfrd. > > > 6154 ypxfrd Portmap Request (Info,

Re: Catalyst 4500 listening on TCP 6154 on all interfaces

reading this - just wonderingdo you use the SmartCall home service? I wonder if that's what is using this. try this: no service smart-call-home and see if that disables it... just a thought On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:51 AM, frederic.jut...@sig-telecom.net <

[NANOG-announce] NANOG on the Road - Portland

NANOG Community, I would like to extend an invitation to join us at our upcoming NANOG on the Road which will take place in Portland, Oregon on May 18, 2018 at the Kimpton Hotel Monaco. NANOG On The Road events provide current NANOG content covering everything from technical services, the status

Re: Catalyst 4500 listening on TCP 6154 on all interfaces

I've been told that the TAC center will not take the time to answer as it's not a 'real' problem, service affecting issue. And the Cisco community forum on that topic was useless (nobody answer to a person which already open a topic about this issue 10 months ago). But you are the 4rd person to

Re: How are you configuring BFD timers?

On 7/May/18 18:46, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > Any words of wisdom / battle scars regarding running links that > are in the 10K+ distance? Keep repair ships nearby :-). >From a submarine perspective, things that are out-of-scope here. >From an IP perspective, we've had good experience

Anyone on from Comcast?

I've spent my morning in customer support hell. Sorry for the noise, but if someone with clue could help a gig residential customer getting 3 Mbit/s, I'd love you.

Re: How are you configuring BFD timers?

On Sun, 06 May 2018 14:23:11 +0200, Mark Tinka said: > We have links as short as 5km, all the way to 14,500km. Any words of wisdom / battle scars regarding running links that are in the 10K+ distance? pgpGUy0drh8FA.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Catalyst 4500 listening on TCP 6154 on all interfaces

* bruce.cur...@ndsu.edu (Curtis, Bruce) [Mon 07 May 2018, 18:25 CEST]: Some Cisco devices use 6154 for ypxfrd. No, they don't. 6154 ypxfrd Portmap Request (Info, Atomic*) Triggers when a request is made to the portmapper for the YP transfer daemon (ypxfrd) port.

Re: Catalyst 4500 listening on TCP 6154 on all interfaces

Some Cisco devices use 6154 for ypxfrd. 6154 ypxfrd Portmap Request (Info, Atomic*) Triggers when a request is made to the portmapper for the YP transfer daemon (ypxfrd) port. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_2/security/configuration/guide/fsecur_c/scfids.html

Re: Catalyst 4500 listening on TCP 6154 on all interfaces

Just a wild thought – why not open a TAC case with Cisco and ask them? On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 3:06 AM, frederic.jut...@sig-telecom.net < frederic.jut...@sig-telecom.net> wrote: > > - a nsa backdoor :-) > > it would be a very bad backdoor as it's really easy to see the port > listening... > > > >

Re: Catalyst 4500 listening on TCP 6154 on all interfaces

> - a nsa backdoor :-) it would be a very bad backdoor as it's really easy to see the port listening... > - a default active service Maybe, but a service which is not officially registered: https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml?search=6154

Re: Route Reflector Client Design Question

On 7/May/18 02:31, Aaron Gould wrote: > I'm not sure what you are taking about with ORR, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-16 Mark.