Re: [c-nsp] Cisco SFP

Thanks. On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Buhrmaster, Gary g...@slac.stanford.eduwrote: What are the implications of using a GLC-ZX-SM module to light a stretch of 20 - 30km? Would I need to add an attenuator, given that 20km is well below the 70km limit? As always, the answer is it

[c-nsp] Hello packets sending on NBMA netwroks

Hi list: I have a question about Hello packet sending on NBMA networks: in page 79 of RFC 2328 it said: If the router is eligible to become Designated Router, it must periodically send Hello Packets to all neighbors that are also eligible. In addition, if the router is itself the Designated

Re: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 and VLANs

Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org writes: On a related note to the PS below... we have tested lt2tpv3 on a few different boxes running various IOS images and on each of the devices we did test we seen the same behavior. This means something is either broke in the code in my opinion or that

Re: [c-nsp] Hello packets sending on NBMA netwroks

Hello. I have a question about Hello packet sending on NBMA networks: in page 79 of RFC 2328 it said: If the router is eligible to become Designated Router, it must periodically send Hello Packets to all neighbors that are also eligible. In addition, if the router is itself the Designated

[c-nsp] nfdump 1.6b snapshot available

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I'm looking for testers for a new snapshot nfdump-1.6b-snapshot=20090619 which I just put onto Sourceforge. There shouldn't be many changes from the beta code until final 1.6 stable. However, I would like users to test the new snapshot

Re: [c-nsp] the ospf 0*E2 route type can not be redistributed between two ospf process

Well if you're talking default-information originate, then the route in question is 0.0.0.0/0, default. It's special - you can't just tell an OSPF process to redistribute 0.0.0.0/0. If you want both processes to distribute default, then they both need the default-information originate command.

[c-nsp] Incorrect netflow data from 7600/6500?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm trying to export flows from a 6509 to nfcapd/nfdump. When I sort by protocol and bytes I see a protocol 0 as the majority of the traffic. Top 20Protocol ordered by bytes: Proto Protocol Flows PacketsBytes 0 0

[c-nsp] Long Uptime

Not techy, just interesting anyone beat this uptime? Liverpool_St_A#sho ver Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS (tm) 3000 Software (IGS-J-L), Version 11.0(13), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) Copyright (c) 1986-1996 by cisco Systems, Inc. Compiled Mon 09-Dec-96 19:48 by athavale Image

Re: [c-nsp] Long Uptime

Nic McCartney wrote: Not techy, just interesting anyone beat this uptime? I can, but not on a Cisco. Peace... Sridhar ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at

Re: [c-nsp] Incorrect netflow data from 7600/6500?

On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 15:08 +0200, Peter Haag wrote: I've seen this result from multiple other Netflow tools: ntop, Orion NetFlow and now nfdump. The only common element is my hardware. I've exported flows from a 7606-SUP32 and a 6509SUP720-3B both running 12.2(18)SXF4. Both emit the

Re: [c-nsp] Long Uptime

Check this: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/18932 Some of them are more stable than yours :P //Mustafa On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Nic McCartney n...@gblx.net wrote: Not techy, just interesting anyone beat this uptime? Liverpool_St_A#sho ver Cisco Internetwork Operating

Re: [c-nsp] Long Uptime

Is this suppose to be a good thing? (not patching your systems for almost 10 years?)... Gustavo. On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Nic McCartneyn...@gblx.net wrote: Not techy, just interesting anyone beat this uptime? Liverpool_St_A#sho ver Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS

[c-nsp] ETSI Rack mounts for 4500

All, I am looking for some ERSI Rack mount ears to place some Cisco 4506's in special Telco cabinets. The cabinets are 1,5 inch wider than the normal 19 inch cabinets. Does Cisco have these rack ears ? regards, Rinse ___ cisco-nsp mailing list

[c-nsp] Sup720 vs RSP720 - Difference?

I'm not seeing anything jump out at me as different between the Sup720(3BXL) and RSP. What am I missing? The potential deployment is core glue (router-reflector, redundancy) between border and aggregation layers. Other than BGP and OSPF, it's job would be essentially to just move packets. uRPF

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 vs RSP720 - Difference?

The biggie is 7600 only not 6500 :-( As I am sure Gert will be along shortly to say. -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp- boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Rick Ernst Sent: 19 June 2009 15:55 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp]

Re: [c-nsp] the ospf 0*E2 route type can not be redistributedbetween two ospf process

See also http://wiki.nil.com/OSPF_default_routes for more details. Best regards Ivan http://www.ioshints.info/about http://blog.ioshints.info/ -Original Message- From: Geoffrey Pendery [mailto:ge...@pendery.net] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 2:36 PM To: ying-xiang Cc: cisco-nsp

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 vs RSP720 - Difference?

Rick Ernst wrote: I'm not seeing anything jump out at me as different between the Sup720(3BXL) and RSP. What am I missing? The CPU is faster. It's 7600-only. I think it's got resilient EOBC (does the EOBC fail in the real world!?!) and there are probably some other things.

[c-nsp] ACE load-balancing of DNS / ALG / inspection

All, We've recently deployed config on our ACE (blades in 6500s) to provide resilient DNS. However, the ACE seems to be doing some kind of DNS inspection, and is (incorrectly I think) closing the SLB session the instant a DNS answer comes back. This causes problems with clients that make 2

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 vs RSP720 - Difference?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Rick, here's a short overview about the diff: - -- Sup720 RSP720 MSFCMSFC3

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 vs RSP720 - Difference?

I'm not sure about performance numbers but biggest thing I can see is support for 4GB RAM - for us, this is becoming an issue with BGP tables chewing up 60% of our memory today in 3BXL's. I miss the PRP2 platform for BGP now... thinking of moving back to GSR's in the near future on PRP3's Paul

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 vs RSP720 - Difference?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Rick, i forgot the cpu-- SUP-720 RSP-720 CPU 600Mhz 1.3GHz Brgds and have a great day -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

Re: [c-nsp] Long Uptime

Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS (tm) C2950 Software (C2950-I6Q4L2-M), Version 12.1(11)EA1, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) Copyright (c) 1986-2002 by cisco Systems, Inc. Compiled Wed 28-Aug-02 10:25 by antonino Image text-base: 0x8001, data-base: 0x80528000 ROM: Bootstrap program is

Re: [c-nsp] Long Uptime

Come on guys, 529weeks = 10yrs nobody beat that ? J Nic From: Adam Piasecki [mailto:apiase...@gmail.com] Sent: 19 June 2009 16:43 To: Gustavo Rodrigues Ramos Cc: Nic McCartney; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Long Uptime Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS

Re: [c-nsp] Redirects / hair-pinning traffic vs. performance

Just guessing: for PBR you need netflow-like TCAM entries, so the first packet in the flow is always processor-switched and then the subsequent packets can be hardware-switched. Does this make sense to the switching gurus? Ivan http://www.ioshints.info/about http://blog.ioshints.info/

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 vs RSP720 - Difference?

Thanks to everyone for the feedback so far. For my situation, the two biggest items that stand out are: - 4GB vs 1GB RAM - 7600 chassis only, not 6500 (planning on a 7600 chassis, though) I'm a bit surprised that you are seeing ~60% memory used by BGP. My border routers (4 routers, 1 full

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 vs RSP720 - Difference?

Rick Ernst wrote: Thanks to everyone for the feedback so far. For my situation, the two biggest items that stand out are: - 4GB vs 1GB RAM - 7600 chassis only, not 6500 (planning on a 7600 chassis, though) I'm a bit surprised that you are seeing ~60% memory used by BGP. My border routers (4

Re: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 and VLANs

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Benny Amorsen wrote: Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org writes: On a related note to the PS below... we have tested lt2tpv3 on a few different boxes running various IOS images and on each of the devices we did test we seen the same behavior. This means something is

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 vs RSP720 - Difference?

Hey there... Between the two 7206's in question, we have about 280 BGP peers configured split about 60/40 between them ;) Paul -Original Message- From: Rick Ernst [mailto:r...@woofpaws.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 12:32 PM To: Paul Stewart Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 vs RSP720 - Difference?

Hi, On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 07:54:55AM -0700, Rick Ernst wrote: I'm not seeing anything jump out at me as different between the Sup720(3BXL) and RSP. What am I missing? RSP has faster CPU and you are stuck to the bad guys BU. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 vs RSP720 - Difference?

Hi, On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:32:12PM +0200, thomas.silla...@nextiraone.de wrote: here's a short overview about the diff: - -- Sup720 RSP720 MSFC

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 vs RSP720 - Difference?

Hi, On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 09:32:25AM -0700, Rick Ernst wrote: On the subject of memory and DFCs... do the DFCs also support 4GB for the FIB, or is this an apples vs oranges comparison? The DFC is the same, and its FIB memory is limited by TCAM (1 million entries on the -XL) not by DRAM.

Re: [c-nsp] Long Uptime

Hi, On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:52:54PM +0100, Nic McCartney wrote: Come on guys, 529weeks = 10yrs nobody beat that ? J Best I have is win-gw uptime is 9 years, 37 weeks, 4 days, 5 hours, 26 minutes System restarted by power-on at 11:32:23 UTC Sat Oct 2 1999 System image file is

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 vs RSP720 - Difference?

Thanks for all the great feedback and information, folks! So, the Sup720/RSP720 uses DRAM to store RIB + other stuff, and the FIB is in TCAM either on the Sup (if no DFC), or on the DFC? It looks like the extra memory on the RSP720 vs Sup720 would be good for multiple feeds, but the TCAM

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 vs RSP720 - Difference?

Hi, On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:55:11AM -0700, Rick Ernst wrote: So, the Sup720/RSP720 uses DRAM to store RIB + other stuff, and the FIB is in TCAM either on the Sup (if no DFC), or on the DFC? Correct. It looks like the extra memory on the RSP720 vs Sup720 would be good for multiple feeds,

Re: [c-nsp] Thanks (Re: Sup720 vs RSP720 - Difference?)

Hi, (I'm copying back my response to c-nsp, because it ended up longer than intended, and it might be useful to have in the archives) On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:10:43AM -0700, Rick Ernst wrote: Thanks for the tremendous help you've given on the Sup/RSP question. I've been wading through

Re: [c-nsp] ACE load-balancing of DNS / ALG / inspection

Not sure if these are applicable but may be worth looking into. Just a shot in the dark as I don't have ACEs to test with and I have not run into this particular problem myself. I think each feature is mutually exclusive. UDP booster (high connection rates for UDP) and UDP fast-age (UDP

Re: [c-nsp] Long Uptime

OTOH this box was doing production traffic until about two weeks ago (and is now retired due to only 10 Mbit/s ethernet and no IPv6). 11.0, wow :-) Some of us have not-so-fond memories of 8.2 - before it was called IOS :-) (Also, before CIDR, before command completion and lots of other

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 vs RSP720 - Difference?

SUP-720 RSP-720 CPU 600Mhz 1.3GHz CPU ArchMIPS basedPPC based SR71000 8548 (comparing cpu effectiveness between the two architecture implementations is a more complex evaluation than the

[c-nsp] QoS for skype with nbar on 837 with 12.3(11)YZ2

Dear All, i am trying to apply QoS on my aDsl interface (2048/256) and i need to give strict priority to voice traffic, including skype and g711. I suppose that i can match the g711 by using nbar rtp audio protocol or by using source ports that are know on my asterisk server. Because of

Re: [c-nsp] QoS for skype with nbar on 837 with 12.3(11)YZ2

Even with the newest Skype nbar pdlm or built-in nbar in 12.4T(x), it is pretty useless. The majority of Skype traffic is sent now encrypted over port 443. The only way I know to monitor/block it is with something like bluecoat/websense, and then only at the point of origin (since you have to

Re: [c-nsp] Long Uptime

If it is an OOB system and it works why not? Aaron On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:25, Gustavo Rodrigues Ramos gust...@nexthop.com.br wrote: Is this suppose to be a good thing? (not patching your systems for almost 10 years?)... Gustavo. On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Nic

Re: [c-nsp] Incorrect netflow data from 7600/6500?

Peter Rathlev wrote: On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 15:08 +0200, Peter Haag wrote: I've seen this result from multiple other Netflow tools: ntop, Orion NetFlow and now nfdump. The only common element is my hardware. I've exported flows from a 7606-SUP32 and a 6509SUP720-3B both running 12.2(18)SXF4.

Re: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 and VLANs

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Benny Amorsenbenny+use...@amorsen.dk wrote: Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org writes: Generally problems with PMTU are caused by people blocking ICMP in their (usually PIX/ASA) firewalls. If you control the whole path, you can make sure that you're not one of

[c-nsp] Shaping and dialer ints 12.4(24)T vs. 15T8

Can anyone confirm for me if some shaping and/or NBAR bugs were fixed between 24T and older 15T7 or T8? Platform is 870, interface is Ethernet doing PPPoE to upstream DSL modem. Under 15T, a policy applied to the physical Ethernet int that looked like this: class-map match-any Hi-Priority

Re: [c-nsp] Shaping and dialer ints 12.4(24)T vs. 15T8

Hi Charles, On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Church, Charlescchur...@harris.com wrote: Can anyone confirm for me if some shaping and/or NBAR bugs were fixed between 24T and older 15T7 or T8? Hmm, it doesn't directly match your scenario, but there were some new QoS features introduced in