Hi.
Have anyone measured typical power consumption of ASR-1001 ? Specs
rate it at 471W max for AC-input, but doesn't specify if it's for base
version or the IDC-equipped versions.
Rubens
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Jay Nakamura zeusda...@gmail.com wrote:
Does Cisco make any dedicated packet shaper? Does anyone recommend
any other vendors for 100~200mbps bandwidth and deep packet
inspection?
Cisco SCE. For other vendors look at Sandvine, Arbor, Procera, Ipoque.
Or build
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Pete Lumbis alum...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure on the timers but generally testing CEF/PXF switched issues
(through the box) with process switched traffic (to the box) isn't
always a valid check. I'd suggest pinging something directly connected
to the 7300 so
Hi.
I'm helping a friend diagnose some strange packet loss issues, and it
seems that every 5s (for multicast traffic going thru a 7300 router)
or every 10s (for ICMP traffic targeted at the same router) one or
more packets get lost.
I'm thinking what cyclic tasks could impact performance in such
I'm busy with a pair of 3750ME switches in my lab that are supposed to be
the beginning of a Metro MPLS deployment.
I know the whole deal about only using the ES ports to do the MPLS
labelling.
I found an existing config on the switch with MPLS configured on an SVI. LDP
seems to be
The NetIron CER 2000 can store up to
512,000 IPv4 or 128,000 IPv6 unicast
routes, enough to accommodate the full
IPv4 Internet routing table today and
provide a smooth migration path to IPv6.
That is not going to hold you for very long, IMO. If you buy this box for
BGP you are going to
I wouldn't try to turn the N7K into an edge peering platform.
Which seems inline with my reading of Cisco's strategy: replace the
jack-of-all-trades 6500/7600 platform with mission-specific hardware:
Nexus + ASR1K + ASR9K. They make more money this way, as people won't
move the same chassis
According to this source, Android should be Cisco target mobile OS:
http://www.csectioncomics.com/2010/11/iphone-vs-android-vs-blackberry.html
Rubens
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Scott Granados sc...@granados-llc.net wrote:
Add the IPhone to that list as well if it already doesn't
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 01:11:17AM -0500, Devon True wrote:
If anyone knows of a way to do this on a 6500/7600, please let me know. :)
Bash your cisco representative with something hard and painful.
It's sooo
IPSEC ?
http://packetlife.net/blog/2008/sep/3/ospfv3-authentication/
Rubens
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Devon True de...@noved.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All:
Since OSPFv3 authentication is not supported on 6500/7600 series
routers, I am curious to know
My 3750ME foo is slowly fading, but are those ports Enhanced ports ?
Only the enhanced ports can be MPLS uplinks.
Rubens
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Manaf Al Oqlah man...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have established an EoMPLS circuit on ME3750 switches as below. everything
seems to be
that there was an IPSEC blade for the 9K like there is for
the 7600. If there is not then obviously your would need to put something
like an ASA in-line but then it should work fine.
-Ben
On Oct 27, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
After reading ASR-9000 specs no CCO, seems to me
After reading ASR-9000 specs no CCO, seems to me that is not possible
to do Layer 2 transport with IPSEC with it, either using L2TPv3 (like
ASR-1000) or VPLS (like 7600). Is that really true, or am I missing
something ?
Rubens
___
cisco-nsp mailing
If you can compromise the full-views requirement, ME6524-GT-8S has 8
SFP ports and 24 BASE-T ports, ME6524-GS-8S has 32 SFP ports (8
unsubscribed, 24 1:3 oversubscribed).
You could receive full-views and filter them out to fit the reduced
FIB. Device is 1.5U and fits nicely into small spaces. DC
If legal requires many confirmations before downloading software
image, Cisco Online could have telnet access and X/Y/Zmodem file
transfers. Very modern solution, indeed.
Rubens
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Jason Gurtz jasongu...@npumail.com wrote:
[Comments in-line]
From:
BIRD and OpenBGPd are the favorites among IXP, nowadays.
Rubens
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Denis Savage dsav...@castleaccess.com wrote:
Anyone have any experience building a route-server they would care to share
with me. I have researched Zebra for FreeBSD but it appears to be
Wherever possible I leave autoneg on but try to configure capabilities
to advertise only 100 (or 1000 or 100+1000) Full-Duplex. Operating
systems and some switch brands allow this, but since this is a Cisco
list I haven't found Cisco gear that allow this, so far.
Rubens
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at
Once upon a time, a very large operator which was previously a
Cisco+Juniper shop, bought some Huawei and a few AlcaLu routers. They
forgot to notice that Huawei followed original IS-IS spec (RFC 1142)
to the letter, including generating LSP Purges when receiving corrupt
announcements, which
Yes, it's reasonable due to the high latency of 802.16e and to some
packet losses that are intrinsic to wireless access. Bandwidth is
something related to latency in an inverse linear proportion, and to
that latency you have the add all the way till the server where the
user is getting content
Which means the 3400 CPU and not the switching engine is forwarding
the packets... how many routes are you trying to feed the 3400 ?
Rubens
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Jeremy Parr jeremyp...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 April 2010 11:57, Jeremy Parr jeremyp...@gmail.com wrote:
I have an
I couldn't find the maximum routes when one uses the IPv4+IPv6
template, is it the same of 3750, as the IPv4 only number seems to be
?
Rubens
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Siva Valliappan svall...@cisco.com wrote:
the X-models are at a lower list price then the E-models.
thanks
.siva
Numbered ACLs are recompiled at every line you insert, so the CPU is
stuck at 100% while loading the ACL.
Named ACLs are only recompiled when you exit the ACL context, the CPU
keeps at 100% for a few seconds and it's done.
Rubens
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Jan Sandmaier
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Buhrmaster, Gary g...@slac.stanford.edu wrote:
Is it normal to hide all the bugs at Cisco?
If a bug is found in dev-test it is marked as internal and fix is put
in. Later if someone in the field hit the same bug, then it is made
external.
And while security
i have some wimax base station connected to Cisco ME6524
now the customers when connected a GRE tunnel is established between the RAS
and the ASN GW
now the ip route cache flow is not supported on the switch
Netflow is supported on the ME6524, but you will probably need to use
ip flow
The ME3400 seems to have a less powerful data-plane than its 3750
cousin. The control-plane has some interesting Carrier Ethernet stuff
that ends up implemented as well in 3750 and 6500 (although it takes
years sometimes, as happens with REP that is still not available on
6500).
One recent
1) Change the SVI to router-port
or
2) Loop a cable between two ports on the ME6524 and make the SVI
appear as a router-port subinterface.
Rubens
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Mohammad Khalil eng_m...@hotmail.com wrote:
i configured xconnect on interface vlans between ME6524 and Cisco 7606
For TE (and MPLS in general) check:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/con
figuration/guide/pfc3mpls.html
These documents mention no reference to TE for EoMPLS: is it safe to assume
therefore that the 650 doesn't support tE for EoMPLS?
No, it's not. One
Cisco specs lists the following for ME3400 with METROIPACCESS feature set:
IP routing: Static, RIP versions 1 and 2, EIGRP, OSPF, BGPv4, PIM-SM,
and PIM-DM (metro IP access only)
IPv6: MLD Snooping v1 and v2
IPv6: RIP, OSPFv3, static routes
SXI2a running fine with MPLS, QoS, SVIs (no BFD on those... :-(),
OSPF, BGP. PFC3C-only, no WAN cards/modules, no DFC.
Rubens
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Jeff Fitzwater jf...@princeton.edu wrote:
I have been running the SXI(3) on a test router with 100M MM 6324, which it
did not
There is nothing special about *forwarding* fragmented packets - unless
you have an ACL or anything else that wants to look at Layer 4 info.
That would be Netflow or some QoS policy attached to the interface, for
instance?
I guess the router should reassembly the fragmented packets before
Hi,
Just curious: what happens on a label-enabled interface when a packet
comes with a label that hasn't been negotiated thru LDP ? Is it a
default permit, a default deny, anything that can be changed or tuned
?
Rubens
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
Leonardo,
Do you mean the ability to fragment packets when traversing to smaller
MTU links, or matching fragmented packets in ACLs (fragment ACL
clause) ? On my experience it doesn't support the former, and the
later is PFC-supported but not available on every IOS release.
Rubens
On Tue,
May be tunneling the BGP session with GRE, L2TPv3, MPLS x-connect or
VPLS so it will now appear as a single-hop ?
Rubens
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Gary Stanley g...@velocity-servers.net wrote:
I have a very unusual network setup, ISP-A requires me to have ebgp-multihop
of 2 because
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:25 AM, Stanly Johns johns.sta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible for a BPDU guard enabled switch port to get disabled without
connecting any other device than the IP Phone and a PC ? I had to do a shut
and no shut to bring it up !
The logs are as follows. your
If you are talking about BreezeMAX 802.16d CPEs, the BreezeMAX 802.16d
BST have specific OIDs for graphing the per-CPE or per-service flow
traffic.
If your customers have one VLAN each, you can graph on the Cisco
device using the VLAN or Interface VLAN counters. If all customers
share a single
ME6524 is able to do point-to-point Ethernet L2 circuits (EoMPLS), not
point-to-multipoint (VPLS). ME6524 can be part of a H-VPLS hierarchy
as a leaf, not as a node, which is very similar to do point-to-point
because the multipoint decisions are made on th node.
Rubens
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at
[*maybe* I can do this on port-channel dot1q subinterfaces, but I'm not
yet sure how this will work out - can MUX-UNI be used to mix routed
subinterfaces and switched VLANs? I've only used it to mix MPLS subfs
and switched VLANs].
What intrigues me is that MUX-UNI subinterfaces can be mpls
I would consider using a layered-session approach.
The first layer would be used only to provide the path to the BGP
loopback, both to your core routers and to your transit providers, and
would be used to equalize the metric of the alternate paths. A likely
scenario would consist of 4 BGP sessions
Hank,
Any news on what exactly was EOL'ed ?
Rubens
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote:
I just got this product alert from Cisco:
From: cisconotificationserv...@cisco.com
To: h...@efes.iucc.ac.il
Subject: Cisco Notification Alert
My guess is it would require set ip next-hop recursive to work even
on an hypothetical platform that support such thing.
Rubens
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:12 PM, MLm...@kenweb.org wrote:
Has anyone on the list tried to perform PBR on the ME3400 while setting next
hop to an IP at the far end
And even if the command exists, there is no such feature on the PFC
AFAIK, so the 6500 would be turned into a 7200...
Rubens
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Javier Liendo jav...@liendo.net wrote:
hi ibrahim,
the issue is that on a 6500 with sup720 AFAIK there is no adjust-mss
under the
A possible solution that it's not a straightforward Checkpoint
replacement would be using DNS views. To 200.1.1.1, DNS would answer
80.1.1.1; to 190.1.1.1, DNS would answer 80.1.1.2, and 80.1.1.2 would
be translated to 10.1.1.2.
You can even enforce this by using both NAT and access rules.
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Marcelo Zilio ziliomarc...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rubens,
Thanks for your response.
I'm sorry, but I didn't understand what you meant...
Remember IPs 200.1.1.1 and 190.1.1.1 are Internet address and I cannot
control their DNS resolution.
Yes we can! :-)
Have anynone done any testing interoperating Cisco MPLS (Cat 6k or
7600 families) with Mikrotik (which is just packaging of MPLS Linux) ?
I'm specially curious about EoMPLS and H-VPLS interoperating, but
basic LDP/RSVP/MPLS-TE/MPLS-FRR also needs to be addressed, of course.
Rubens
My searches have so far turned up JFFNMS, OpenNMS, Mila NetWhistler, NetCool
(expensive?) and a few others. There's also the GroundWork fork of Nagios
and other OSS tools that may be useful.
On the few others section, Castlerock's SNMPc is a nice, cheap
product we are very fond of.
What's Up
How well does Opsview scale to, for instance, 10 thousand devices and
20 thousand data sources ?
Rubens
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Roy r.engehau...@gmail.com wrote:
Opsview???
http://www.opsview.org
Arne Larsen / Region Nordjylland wrote:
Hi Folks.
Can someone give me a hint, I’m
Consider using this one:
ME-3400G-2CS-A with METROBASE IOS
Be aware that it doesn't have routing capabilities, but you can move
the routing part to the PE, if (and that's a you need to verify it
if) you can ACL/QoS the broadcast and non-IP traffic to not leave
the CPE.
See
Why not a free(not open, but no cost) tool with commercial support ?
http://inventory.alterpoint.com/
BTW, what are people's opinions comparing RANCID to Network Authority
Inventory (formerly known as ZipTie) in the configuration management
discipline ?
Rubens
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 7:57 PM,
Remember that full SFM usage requires all modules to be
fabric-enabled. If there are any line cards that aren't fabric
enabled, all traffic will still go thru the bus, doesn't matter if it
is an OIR or from power-up.
Your question is if this OIR stands for Online Insertion and Removal
or for
/ps5718/ps4324/product_bulletin_c25_468227.html
7600 has supported REP since 12.2(33)SRC -
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/lanswitch/configuration/guide/lsw_cfg_rep.html;
I stand corrected.
Rubens
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think Cisco
I don't think Cisco currently have an 10G ethernet ring offer. It
might come up when REP (Resilient Ethernet Protocol) gets implemented
in the 6500 IOS. It was supposed to be on SXI, but that didn't happen.
If 2G is enough, ME-3400G-12CS-x with 4 SFP uplinks might do Gigabit
Etherchannel, perhaps
But I guess we'll finally opt for letting the Cisco QA be enough as a
guarantee the devices work (there's always RMA) and have Alex's suggestion be
the winner here, just be as nebulous as you can and follow the ill-defined
and metaphysical characteristique of such undefined term as
I'm trying to map US Patent 7230913
(http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7230913.html) to an specific IOS
feature... it sounded to me like AutoTunnel, is that so ?
Rubens
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
.
Rubens
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Phil Bedard phil...@gmail.com wrote:
autotunnel primary one-hop. The one-hop portion being the important part.
Phil
On Jan 12, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
I'm trying to map US Patent 7230913
(http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7230913.html
Could it be IPv6 control-plane support but not forwarding support ?
As for IPv6 on the ME-3400, I wonder if it will be hardware (Mpps) or
software (kpps) support... ME-3400E most likely has IPv6 hardware
forwarding, but as for the ME-3400, it might not.
Rubens
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:19 PM,
Signaling protocol: LDP, peer 10.200.1.8:0 up
MPLS VC labels: local 330, remote 69
Group ID: local 0, remote 0
MTU: local 9000, remote 1500
Try matching the MTU of both ends. Be aware that 3750 has both global
and local MTU, and global MTU change on the 3750 require reload.
Rubens
Making the same file for release notes of SXH and SXI makes /me think
that SXH4 won't see the light... what do people have heard about it ?
About SXI, does it look deployable or SXI3 or SXI4 is the version to look for ?
(may be too soon to tell, I know)
One thing we noticed about promised
I think ASR is just the cool name of the moment. The new ASRs could be
called CRS-0.5, CRS-0.1, Edge-CRS...
Rubens
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Pete Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Justin Shore wrote:
Did anyone else miss an announcement for the ASR 9000 series?
What are the current xSP impressions on using Performance Routing
(formerly known as Optimized Edge Routing) on the current Internet
Default-Free-Zone, manipulating inbound traffic by BGP route control ?
Does it add availability and quality or troubles ?
Platform is 7600, PFC3BXL.
Rubens
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Marko Milivojevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:31, David Curran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We use them as a sort of port replicator for routers like the 7206 where
we need a few more ethernet ports. Rock solid little box. The UNI/NNI port
Not only postponed, but the feature matrix has been changed, so some
roadmapped features won't show up in SXI.
Rubens
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* A.* First customer ship is expected in September 2008.
I just heard that's been postponed
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Rodney Dunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 02:45:48AM -0300, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
Every once in a while one of ME6524 routers starts getting hammered by
one customer or the other... the symptom is that all adjacencies go
down and stay stuck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it's a lot of punts and the hardware rate limiters don't catch
them you would overrun the RP cpu or the ibc interface going up to the
RP.
Rodney
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 06:46:38PM -0200, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Rodney Dunn [EMAIL
But no SXH3a or SHX4 yet... :-(
Is SRC2 available to download or just the release notes ? SXHn has
been recently released weeks after it appeared on release notes.
Rubens
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Simon Leinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SRC2 just appeared on CCO. Release notes:
PE-1CHOC3-SMIR-QPP PIC for the Juniper M7i, perhaps ?
Rubens
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:43 PM, David Aldworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are looking for a fully channelized OC3 interface for a Cisco 7200 VXR.
Something that we can break individual T1's off of. In researching this
there are
Every once in a while one of ME6524 routers starts getting hammered by
one customer or the other... the symptom is that all adjacencies go
down and stay stuck at EXCHANGE phase.
CPU doesn't go up, and CoPP is applied; OSPF is authenticated on every
adjacency (which are all point-to-point on SVIs),
Cisco 7600 + ES20 are way too expensive on a price/port perspective.
Consider distributing smaller Cisco ME6524 boxes (which is not as
cheap as it used to be, but it is still lot less than 7600) instead of
large boxes like MX 960; if you really have the density to buy MX 960
instead of MX 240, I
exception, not on 90%+ rule... which is the case for our
market, but might not be the case for the original poster. Good point.
Rubens
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Mark Tinka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 17 September 2008 09:24:13 Rubens Kuhl Jr.
wrote:
Cisco 7600 + ES20
It's minimal, but RSP720-3CXL is going to require a 7600, though if you
are willing to trade the MSFC4 for VSS, you can go with a VS-Sup720-3CXL.
Either one is going to force you off of 12.2SXF.
Since the difference between 3B and 3C mainly seems to be number of MAC
addresses, a Sup720-3BXL
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Rick Kunkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I've hit the dreaded error message on my Sup2:
%MLSCEF-SP-7-FIB_EXCEPTION: FIB TCAM exception, Some entries will be
software switched
1) Try filtering on anything less than /24s and pointing default
routes to your
Such algorithms are indeed used, as you can see at the IOS reference
for the access-list compiled command where the ACL is converted to a
data structure that is O(1).
I don't know which algorithm they use in IOS nowadays, but for a very
good reference on all of those algorithms (using RAM or
Does the same apply to Cisco 881 ?
Rubens
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Brett Looney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm running into an issue on a 1841 router where I have an internet
feed coming into one of the integrated switchportsI have the vlan
that the switchport is configured in as
You might also look at ASR1k as next-gen PE to replace VXR. 7600 has
limitation in hardware, especially in terms of IPv6 (no IPv6 uRPF, lookup
key size has compromises in ACL usage and others). When you compare
7600 with SIP/SPA, ASR1k is even cheaper solution and much more flexible.
One
We are informed that SXF code also has the route-map bug, but we have
more confidence in that code (having removed route-maps in it many
times without problems) so we have reverted to SXF6 while awaiting a
new SXH build.
SHX4 is a quarter away, any sightings of a SXH3a on the horizon ?
My understanding of the SXH3 release notes was that monolithic IOS
(Adv. IP Services feature set) requires 256MB of SP(Switching
Processor) memory (which is the ME6524 default) and 512MB of
RP(Routing Processor) memory (also the ME6524 default).
I've opened a TAC case (SR 609292161, if any Cisco
My first issue is with VPLS, aside from requiring very expensive hardware,
is it reliable enough for this? (we're the national telco, this will be
carrying 999/911/112 calls)
Since you are designing the network ground-up, you can use whatever
fits best, and VPLS definitively isn't.
I think L3
Can he add VLAN translation to the scenario ?
Rubens
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephen Fulton wrote on Sunday, August 31, 2008 2:03 AM:
Hi all,
I'm testing out VFI's in a lab, and I've run into the following when I
attempt to add
Smarts is what used to be BMC Patrol or something else ?
How it compares price-wise to Cisco Works ?
Rubens
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Then you want a see this:
http://www.emc.com/products/family/smarts-family.htm
Smart is a monitoring tools with
If you have 2 two virtual channels on the PE-CE link, one can be used
for management and belong to the Management VRF, while the other
belongs to the customer VRF. It's easier to do this when the
connection is Ethernet, where a virtual channel is a VLAN.
On TDM world, running frame-relay
Hi.
I'm trying to convince a friend not to use SDH-to-Ethernet mux and
instead go for a router-based solution, but I've only found ATM
network modules to go with 3xxx series routers.
What would the cheapest(new, used, refurbished, all of above) Cisco
gear that could:
1) On the remote sites, have
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rubens Kuhl Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Cisco-nsp
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] SXI on 6500 (was: SXH on 6500)
Robert,
Updating this modular x monolithic thread to SXI, what's the current
plan for SXI, modular
Latest info I've got is that the ME6500 is under the ISBU, Internet Systems.
7600 is under the ERBU, Edge Routing, and 12000/CRS is under the CRBU,
Core Routing.
Rubens
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Justin Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phil Mayers wrote:
You're the 6500 IOS team. You
I don't think there is any Cisco low-end solution to this; 7200, ASR,
10k and SCE are the platforms I think can do this one way or the
other.
Consider using Mikrotik or NoCat/NoDog solutions (http://nocat.net/).
Rubens
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Kyle Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can it be prevented, i.e, configuring 1252 to only run 802.11n, even
in WDS mode ?
We are hoping that 802.11n can improve on Wi-Fi tradition of having
low pps rate, which is due to the sum of the 802.11b/a/g standard
and low speed processors on the devices.
Rubens
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 7:49
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Adrian M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have a cisco ME-C6524GT-8S with software
s6523-advipservicesk9-mz.122-18.ZU2 and I don't know how to do some
basic things like:
How to clear an arp entry
clear ip arp 10.10.10.10 doesn't work :(
On some platforms,
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Adrian M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On some platforms, conf t +no arp a.b.c.d can do this, but I
haven't tried it on ME6524. Is clear arp interface xxx where xxx
is the interface where the arp entry is located won't probably be that
hard, unlesss you have
There were some platforms like the 7500 where no arp in config mode
did work for dynamic ARP entries.
As I said, I haven't tested it on the ME6524, neither with SVIs or
routed interfaces, neither with ZU2 or SXH IOS.
An ARP entry associated with DHCP Snooping / Dynamic ARP Inspection /
IP Source
Robert,
Updating this modular x monolithic thread to SXI, what's the current
plan for SXI, modular only or both modular and non-modular ?
Rubens
On Tue, Oct 2, 2007 at 12:07 PM, Robert Crowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SXH was originally planned to be modular only, but a non-modular image was
I was wondering if anybody has mixed EoMPLS and MPLS-TE, running on
PFC-based MPLS (Sup720, ME6524 and related platforms) in a scenario
like this:
PE1 MPLS Cloud with TE affinity bits PE2
PE1 and PE2 have an EoMPLS xconnect with each other, targeted at each
router loopback.
Phil,
Are there any memory issues with SXH3 on your lab ? It seems SXH3,
modular or monolithic, requires more SP/RP memory than SXH2a.
Rubens
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Phil Mayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
Just a warning, there is a fatal crash bug in SXH3 related to using SCP.
12000. ME6524 seems a good fit for this environment, J-2320/6350 could
be the J-land options to explore (although ISR 38x5 are their
counterparts at C-land, not the ME6524).
QoS in PE and catalyst doesn't seem good fit to me. Unless you have
dedicated port to each customer. But in view most
AFAIK, ASR 1000 or 4500/Sup6-E don't support MPLS in current software
releases, so your Cisco-land options are ISR 38x5, 6500, 7600 and
12000. ME6524 seems a good fit for this environment, J-2320/6350 could
be the J-land options to explore (although ISR 38x5 are their
counterparts at C-land, not
Hi.
CCO datasheets weren't heplful where a 7603-S can or cannot
- Be ordered with Advanced IP Services IOS
- Be ordered with AC power
- Be ordered with a XL sup (either SUP720-3BXL or RSP720-3CXL)
(Product Configurator access has been cut off for our CCO account, so
we couldn't otherwise
. It's confusing, and unnecessarily complicated.
We'll never be able to get away from Cisco completely, but when possible
this stupid crap drives us to the point we will do anything to avoid buying
from Cisco, and look to their competitors.
Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
Ouch. Are you dealing
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Phil Mayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
list of points why STP shouldn't interact
...the key thing being should not, rather than will not. Using an
entirely different protocol protects to a degree against human or machine
error e.g. forgetting the bpduguard
Cost issues and the relationship wit the local subsidiary; we have
very little problems with the ME6500, one being the BFD with SVIs
issue that you don't like either if I recall correctly.
Cost is high but it can cut both ways. That leads to a long discussion for
another day and I'm sure
Ouch. Are you dealing with a partner or Cisco Direct? There isn't any
excuse for the price to go up, period. If you like I could hook you up with
our Cisco Direct guys. If you got your order in this week you might be a
decent discount simply because their fiscal year ends this month and
Hi.
After an initial deployment with many ME6500's (ME6524-24GT-8S to be
exact), we are finding too difficult to deal with Cisco for the
expansion. What clear alternatives are available from other vendors or
either from Cisco as a nice MPLS router with Ethernet only interfaces,
even with less
After an initial deployment with many ME6500's (ME6524-24GT-8S to be
exact), we are finding too difficult to deal with Cisco for the
expansion. What clear alternatives are available from other vendors or
either from Cisco as a nice MPLS router with Ethernet only interfaces,
even with less
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Paul Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Rubens...
Sorry if this is sidetracking the conversation a bit - apologies. But, what
can folks tell me about shared support in general? I always thought it was
Smartnet or nothing hence why I'm asking... is this 3rd
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
