Hi,
Am getting the following error when setting up route target rewrite.
used as BGP inbound route-map, set extcommunity rt not supported
Regards,
Shake Righa
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Eric Cables wrote:
The current solution deployed is a single server with a single modem
physically attached, using a shared minicom dialing directory as the
dialer. Obviously another system at another geographic location is
preferred, but that leads to the next hurdle -- virtualization. Not
Hi Steinar,
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:11 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Or put them in IBGP.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Can you elaborate? Why would one want to put edge VLANs into IBGP? Thanks
for clarifying.
/bs
___
Brian Spade wrote:
Hi Steinar,
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:11 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Or put them in IBGP.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Can you elaborate? Why would one want to put edge VLANs into IBGP? Thanks
for clarifying.
The general advice is:
* Put
We just picked up a 7206VXR w/NPE-G2.
It currently has 12.4(15)T1, which looks pretty old.
This won't be used for anything crazy...bgp, ospf, access lists. It's a
box full of ethernet interfaces that will push packets.
The router its replacing runs 12.0(31)S, to give you an idea of the goals
Thank you Phil and Steinar for clarifying. This is a very interesting
approach that I plan to investigate more on my network. Thanks!!
/bs
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:45 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Or put them in IBGP.
Can you elaborate? Why would one want to put edge VLANs into IBGP?
Latest 12.4 mainline if it supports everything you need and runs on your
platform -- it's pretty mature at this point.
If you need a 12.4T feature, then the latest rebuild of 12.4(15)T are very
stable releases. They are on something like T9 or T10 right now.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:05 PM,
I've been pretty happy with 12.4(24)T2. We are doing bgp, access-list,
etc...but not ospf..
12.4(24)T fixed a lot of bugs in bgp and T2 seems stable.
Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd
OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577
http://www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim:
How many of you are doing or have attempted/wanted to do it?
Rodney
___
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/
Hi there, I've been slowly working through some issues with our new 6500
deployment and I've noticed something a little strange.
I'm noticing input queue drops on a few of the port-channels that go between
the Core - Border, the queue drops do not show up on the physical ports, only
on the
Lincoln,
Just to be clear:
all 'edge' ports should be running with BPDU guard enabled. 'edge ports'
(those facing hosts) should NEVER send BPDUs out. BPDU guard is there to
detect if they do - and if they do, its a sign that they have caused a
loop in the network.
ports with BPDU guard
Hi all,
I'm looking for input on applications to generate configuration and manage
network devices for a fairly large base of devices (2000). Specifically
for routers and switches, not so much linux or windows hosts. There seems
to be a great number of apps to backup and manage the configs of
12.2SRC5 here, so far so good
El vie, 04-12-2009 a las 14:21 -0500, Matthew Huff escribió:
I've been pretty happy with 12.4(24)T2. We are doing bgp, access-list,
etc...but not ospf..
12.4(24)T fixed a lot of bugs in bgp and T2 seems stable.
Matthew Huff | One
It could very interesting to have historic RRD files with the behaviour
of the NAT and, try to cross info with issues or customer problems.
Do you know if it is possible to count over snmp the nat exhausted
problems?
El vie, 04-12-2009 a las 14:58 -0500, Rodney Dunn escribió:
How many of you are
www.ziptie.org could help you
El vie, 04-12-2009 a las 15:34 -0500, chip escribió:
Hi all,
I'm looking for input on applications to generate configuration and manage
network devices for a fairly large base of devices (2000). Specifically
for routers and switches, not so much linux or
Hello,
We have upgraded a number of devices to the lastest IOS
c870-advsecurityk9-mz.124-24.T2.bin, and for some reason, the command
peer default ip address seems broken.
interface Dialer1
ip address negotiated
ip mtu 1492
ip nat outside
no ip virtual-reassembly
encapsulation ppp
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 2:55 AM, sky vader aptg...@gmail.com wrote:
So what does tunnel bandwidth transmit / receive statement under
tunnel interface do? For example:
I guess it could be useful if the underlying physical transmission was
asymmetric in nature, e.g. ADSL. Ultimately, though,
Rodney Dunn wrote:
How many of you are doing or have attempted/wanted to do it?
Done it in $JOB-1. Very useful as one indicator of Windows machined
infected by malware.
Peter
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 14:58 -0500, Rodney Dunn wrote:
How many of you are doing or have attempted/wanted to do it?
On firewalls (FWSM/ASA) we would very much like to monitor xlates
which we can't right now AFAIK. :-)
--
Peter
___
cisco-nsp mailing
FWSM version 3.2 added support to monitor the NAT/PAT xlates:
NAT Xlates -- 1.3.6.1.2.1.123.1.6(natAddrBindTable)
PAT Xlates -- 1.3.6.1.2.1.123.1.8(natAddrPortBindTable)
Also see:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/fwsm/fwsm40/configuration/guide/monitr_f.html#wp1104519
Sincerely,
How many of you are doing or have attempted/wanted to do it?
Rodney
It would be more efficient than the PERL script we are currently using to
import the data into RRDs, but we wouldn't upgrade IOS strictly for the feature
since we have a working model.
21 matches
Mail list logo
