Hi list,
i have several BGP networks that only use default routes from a couple of
ISPs. Is it necessary for us to implement bogon lists or just
leave it up to our upstreams? Although we put the basic martian list, we
don't have fullroutes implemented as we only use bgp for redundancy
purposes.
t
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:17:26 -0500, you wrote:
> Other than stackwise on the 3750-E, I haven't been able to discern a
> whole lot of differences between the two switches.
That *is* the only difference.
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.net
With engineering code that hasn't had 1 ounce of regression testing?
tv
- Original Message -
From: "Antonio Soares"
To: "'Tony Varriale'" ;
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] ASA 7.2 Interim Releases
Basically because i have customers that want to be always
I've not done VRF Select PBR myself, but it would appear that it was first
integrated in 12.2(33)SXH1, so you could be running into a bug, or not totally
following the implementation guide as it would appear that you need to give a
next hop when using the "set vrf [instance]" term in the route-m
On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:48 PM, Cyrill Malevanov wrote:
> If you reduce the number of BGP routes to 12000 your 3550-12T will handle two
> GigE uplinks with no CPU impact. Just use the correct SDM template.
Seconded. I use 3550s in my network. 24k is the maximum unicast route table
limit that Cis
>
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:30:32 -0800
> From: Hector Herrera
> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] Router recommendation for load balancing setup
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm looking for a router that can:
If you reduce the number of BGP routes to 12000 your 3550-12T will handle two
GigE uplinks with no CPU impact. Just use the correct SDM template.
On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:30 PM, Hector Herrera wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm looking for a router that can:
>
> - handle load-balancing on two 100Mbps links
Only BGP and Static are supported for 6VPE per Cisco.
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Sridhar
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:30 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] OSPFv3 as PE-CE protocol
Hello!
Is OSPFv3 supported as a PE-CE protocol for 6VPE on IOS-XR? The Cisco
IOS-XR MPLS config guide only specifies BGP as the PE-CE protocol, and
I haven't been able to configure a VRF under OSPFv3.
thanks
sridhar
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp
> I also can't tell the difference. We've been using pairs of 3560E's as
> replacement for stacked pairs of 3750G's (non-E) and are very happy
> about that.
>
> They have almost the exact same specs according to the data sheets[0]
> apart from the stacking thing. And in my eyes it's wrong to pay f
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Rathlev"
To: "Matthew Huff"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Differences between 3750-E and 3560-E switches
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 15:17 -0500, Matthew Huff wrote:
Other than stackwise on the 3750-E, I haven't been
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 15:17 -0500, Matthew Huff wrote:
> Other than stackwise on the 3750-E, I haven't been able to discern a
> whole lot of differences between the two switches. Since the 3750-E is
> about 2 x the price of a similar 3560-E, I want to make sure I'm not
> missing anything. Does anyo
hi,
rust, moisture, corrosion, dust?
I'd have a good look at each module and component.
alan
___
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/
Other than stackwise on the 3750-E, I haven't been able to discern a whole lot
of differences between the two switches. Since the 3750-E is about 2 x the
price of a similar 3560-E, I want to make sure I'm not missing anything. Does
anyone know of any literature that compares the two? Anyone have
Is there any way to disable SNMP traps for a subset of BGP neighbors
like there is for interfaces? I have a couple BGP sessions that are of
"don't care" priority and they don't need to send traps when they flap
(although rarely, it's always when I'm sleeping).
~Seth
___
Answered off-line.
Sincerely,
David.
Antonio Soares wrote:
> I know that 7.2.4(43) is a good release so for me getting the list of bugs
> corrected in 7.2.4(44) would be enough. Can you provide
> that information ? I know that i can open a TAC case but there a thing called
> Shared Support Met
Hi Tom,
If a standby IP is not assigned to the Outside interface, then that
interface will not be able to participate in failover monitoring.
Meaning, the two ASAs will not be able to exchange 'hellos' out that
interface (as the Active unit will not have an IP to send the hello to
on the Standby)
Hello,
I'm looking for a router that can:
- handle load-balancing on two 100Mbps links with minimal cpu impact
- must have at least 4 ports, at least 2 of which should be GigE and
the other two must support FE or GigE
- BGP with 25,000 routes
My budget is small (under $2,000) so I'm probably loo
Try to remove and reinstall all modules in a switch.
On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:58 PM, ambedkar wrote:
> Hi, i am using cisco 6509 switch. This switch is not power ON for last one
> year, now after switch ON,It is going to ROMMON mode.
>
>
> The following is the log:
>
> Currently running ROMMON f
Correct. Just for management.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Tom Lusty
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:04 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] ASA Failover without setting a Standb
Hey Everyone,
We're running a pair of ASAs on 8.2(1), and we only have one available IP in
our external range, and we want to have 2 ASAs for redundancy. So I wanted to
know what the possible ramifications are for not setting a standby IP for an
interface. My understanding is that the Primary
Hi Robert,
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 13:14 +0100, Robert Hass wrote:
> I have to implement some Policy-Based Routing (PBR) route-map's on few
> Catalyst 6500. We currently using Sup720/PFC3BXL with IOS
> 12.2(33)SXH6, but we can migrate to SXI if it helps. Are below PBR
> route-map's are supported in
I know that 7.2.4(43) is a good release so for me getting the list of bugs
corrected in 7.2.4(44) would be enough. Can you provide
that information ? I know that i can open a TAC case but there a thing called
Shared Support Metrics... :)
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (R&S/SP)
amsoa...
Thank you very much for this information.
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (R&S/SP)
amsoa...@netcabo.pt
-Original Message-
From: David White, Jr. (dwhitejr) [mailto:dwhit...@cisco.com]
Sent: terça-feira, 19 de Janeiro de 2010 18:22
To: Antonio Soares
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Hi Antonio,
7.2(4.44) is the latest. But you need a TAC case to get it, and an
associated bug that you are running into which would be resolved by
running 7.2(4.44).
Sincerely,
David.
Antonio Soares wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> I see that the latest 7.2 interim release available on CCO is 7.2.4(3
Hi Antonio,
The "show service-policy" output is not available via SNMP.
Sorry,
David.
Antonio Soares wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> I'm trying to find the OID that gives us the same type of information we see
> in the "show service-policy" output:
>
> pixfirewall(config)# show service-policy
>
> G
On Thursday 07 January 2010 10:09:20 pm David Freedman
wrote:
> When you add MPLS into the mix (for internet routing, not
> just VPN) your border router becomes an LER and as such
> you can't take advantage of the core routers and have
> them MPLS only LSRs at the same time. One solution may
>
Basically because i have customers that want to be always up to date.
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (R&S/SP)
amsoa...@netcabo.pt
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Tony Varriale
Sent: terça-feira,
Not nearly enough traffic. If you have reasonable-speed links, it's almost
impossible to saturate them with low-end routers. We tried with several
IOS-based options, including TTCP and had to fall back to embedded Linux-based
solutions.
Ivan Pepelnjak
blog.ioshints.info / www.ioshints.info
>
On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:41 PM, luismi wrote:
> I dont think so, "debug ip packet" is ok if you use a very specific ACL,
> IMHO.
I've seen even that send RP CPU to 100%, depending upon pps - YMMV, of course.
---
Roland Dobbins //
I dont think so, "debug ip packet" is ok if you use a very specific ACL,
IMHO.
I found very dangerous "debug ip nat detailed", I saw 7200 down because
of that command without too many nat :-P
El mar, 19-01-2010 a las 12:24 +, Dobbins, Roland escribió:
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Andre Scho
Hello Roland,
I know that, we are testing to configure IP-SLA udp-jitter via SNMP with
Infovista.
But the ip sls statistic run into a timeout, so I did a debug ip packet with
filter and the result was the output I send.
If the packet could not be routed, because of the FIB error, that I will
On Jan 19, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Andre Schoppmeier wrote:
> Just have a question regarding FIB errors during packet debugging:
FYI, IP packet debug is generally considered to be too dangerous for use on
production boxes - it's a huge risk in terms of self-DoSing the router(s) in
question.
-
Hello
Just have a question regarding FIB errors during packet debugging:
Jan 19 12:17:48 MEZ: IP: s=172.31.55.194 (Dialer3), d=172.31.55.192, len 60,
input feature
Jan 19 12:17:48 MEZ: UDP src=59668, dst=16000, Dialer i/f override(12),
rtype 0, forus FALSE, sendself FALSE, mtu 0, fw
Hi, i am using cisco 6509 switch. This switch is not power ON for last one
year, now after switch ON,It is going to ROMMON mode.
The following is the log:
Currently running ROMMON from S (Gold) region
Boot image: bootflash:cat6000-sup2cvk9.8-3-2.bin
Module 1 port ASIC 0 failed: Pinnacle Packet
Sorry for spamming, thanks for the information, I'll check out soon.
Mehdi
-Message d'origine-
De : luismi [mailto:asturlui...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : mardi 19 janvier 2010 11:55
À : Mehdi Badreddine
Cc : cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Objet : Re: [c-nsp] cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 86, Issue 48
I ha
I have this and I have accounting:
aaa authentication attempts login 2
aaa authentication login default group tac-plus local-case
aaa authentication login console group tac-plus local-case
aaa authentication enable default enable
aaa authorization console
aaa authorization exec default group tacac
Hi,
Thanks for your responses.
A colleague of mine gave me this answer :
aaa new-model
aaa authentication login default group tacacs+ enable
aaa authentication enable default group tacacs+ enable
aaa authorization exec default group tacacs+ if-authenticated
aaa authorization commands 15 default
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 16:39, Ryan West wrote:
> The card is supported on your platform, but it's a T1 only card, so
> controller e1 or card type won't work for it.
No it's not. All "T" (H)WICs are for serial interfaces, which is *not*
the same as a T1/E1. To use this type of (H)WIC you need a
39 matches
Mail list logo