Not exactly the same but we had an 'automatic' reboot on a Sup720 and Sup32
during a broadcast storm after upgrading tot SXI4a. Before the upgrade the
machine kept running (unresponsive but running) until the cause of the
broadcast storm was removed.
Something seems to have changed in SXI4a
On 14 December 2010 00:00, Andriy Bilous andriy.bil...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't get all excited, it's 10G only. :/
Starting a new thread because we're going well OT.
Andy, if you mean up to 10G ports, then that's okay by me.
I'm waiting for some more info from my friendly SE.
--
Daniel Holme
On 12/14/2010 09:32 AM, Daniel Holme wrote:
On 14 December 2010 00:00, Andriy Bilousandriy.bil...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't get all excited, it's 10G only. :/
Starting a new thread because we're going well OT.
Andy, if you mean up to 10G ports, then that's okay by me.
Yes, joy of joys, a
On 14 December 2010 09:34, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
On 12/14/2010 09:32 AM, Daniel Holme wrote:
On 14 December 2010 00:00, Andriy Bilousandriy.bil...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't get all excited, it's 10G only. :/
Starting a new thread because we're going well OT.
Andy, if
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Holemans Wim wim.holem...@ua.ac.be wrote:
Not exactly the same but we had an 'automatic' reboot on a Sup720 and Sup32
during a broadcast storm after upgrading tot SXI4a. Before the upgrade the
machine kept running (unresponsive but running) until the cause of
Hi all,
I am looking for advice on the best IOS to run on my Catalyst 4503. I
am going to use it as a PE on a still small MPLS network.
cisco WS-C4503 (MPC8245) processor (revision 4) with 524288K bytes of memory.
Processor board ID FOX112813TS
MPC8245 CPU at 400Mhz, Supervisor V
Last reset from
I'm trying to understand the differences between the WS-C4507-E and the
WS-C4507+E but I'm confused:
1) 4503-E, 4506-E, 4507R+E, and 4510R+E chassis are extremely flexible and
support either 6 Gbps, 24 Gbps, or 48Gbps per line-card slot. 4507R-E and
4510R-E chassis are limited to 6 Gbps and 24
rant
Having just installed a set of nice ASR1k boxes with rather new IOS, I
noticed Cisco has still (after many years and many IOS releases) not
managed to get Backup Interfaces IPv6 to work with each other ... or
I'm missing something ... but while IPv4 addresses on backup interfaces
work just
It seems this will be effective in January 2011:
http://www.cisco.com/web/services/resources/newsletter/europe_nov_10.html#7
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP)
amsoa...@netcabo.pt
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
On 12/14/10 6:54 AM, Garry wrote:
rant
Having just installed a set of nice ASR1k boxes with rather new IOS, I
noticed Cisco has still (after many years and many IOS releases) not
managed to get Backup Interfaces IPv6 to work with each other ... or
I'm missing something ... but while IPv4
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 03:58:15PM -, Antonio Soares wrote:
It seems this will be effective in January 2011:
http://www.cisco.com/web/services/resources/newsletter/europe_nov_10.html#7
Haha, Software Download Centre... improved to protect your investment.
'nuff said.
gert
--
The +E chassis has new mux-buffers to support 48G/slot in the redundant
chassis. The higher speed mux-buffers result in the lower rated MTBF. We
priced lower to encourage transition. Going forward, I recommend R+E chassis
purchases only.
Sachin
On 12/14/10 6:06 AM, Antonio Soares
Trying to work through an issue with an upstream where we're seeing
intermittent BGP session flapping. Once or twice a day we're seeing our BGP
session with that provider drop, then flap for anywhere between 5 minutes
and the better part of an hour. During the flapping if we enable debugging
on
Just a side note so I can vent, just talked to TAC and the lady
suggested to boot with the old RAM and swap it while the router was
powered on
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Jay Nakamura zeusda...@gmail.com wrote:
I was having problems upgrading memory in a ISR G2 2951 from two 512M
On 12/14/10 10:09 AM, Jay Nakamura wrote:
Just a side note so I can vent, just talked to TAC and the lady
suggested to boot with the old RAM and swap it while the router was
powered on
I hope you didn't pay too much on the smartnet for that suggestion.
The only time I've seen the
This might help you:
The default Cisco 2951 has a unique memory configuration, whereby a 512 MB DIMM
is installed in one of the two memory slots on the Cisco 2951. Memory upgrades
on the Cisco 2951 can involve the increase in the density of that single DIMM
or a combination of DIMMs with BOTH
On 14 December 2010 11:45, Robert Hass robh...@gmail.com wrote:
We decided to go back to SXH release. But I'm sure that SXH4 is pretty
stable in my experience. But good choice will be if we go to SXH8
release as some bugs was resolved from SXH4 release time. Can anyone
confirm stability Sup32
Just wanted to mention that someone at Cisco saw my post and gotten it
taken care of pretty quickly.
Conclusion,
- One 2GB DIMM in slot 0 is supported on 2951.
- ROMMON upgrade is not necessary.
Which leaves me with bad batch of DIMM.
Thanks!
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Jaquish, Bret
On 14.12.2010 17:47, Seth Mattinen wrote:
ipv6 address 2001:0DB8:107:400::1/64 anycast
This will suppress duplicate address detection.
Nope, doesn't work either ... used the anycast option on both
interfaces, still get the warning on the standby interface, or error
when using it on it when in
On 14/12/2010 15:58, Antonio Soares wrote:
It seems this will be effective in January 2011:
http://www.cisco.com/web/services/resources/newsletter/europe_nov_10.html#7
Software Download Centre Entitlement controls improved to protect your
investment
?
I think they misspelled our. Silly
The message you are seeing has to do with sending updates to the peer.
If they aren't getting ACK'd fast enough we start to queue. Once the
queue fills we fill up and can eventually exceed that sending BGP
queue.
If you have access to the far side, check TCP, input queues,
interfaces, ect. This
Hello
I'm bit confused about bandwidth assigned for priority queue when using LLQ
, if the assigned amount of BW for PQ is high percentage from interface
bandwidth say 50%
and the offered priority traffic rate don't consume that much
my question is about unused amount for BW can be assigned to
Yes, any bandwidth not being used by the LLQ will be used by the other queues.
The LLQ defines a ceiling for bandwidth usage, not a bandwidth reservation.
-Pete
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Ibrahim Abo Zaid
ibrahim.aboz...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
I'm bit confused about bandwidth assigned
Garry,
It could be related to CSCth59072 Backup interface up instead of
standby which affects the ASR1K.
The latest 15.0(1)S version (03.01.02.S.150-1.S2) should have the fix...
What software were you testing with?
Arie
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
24 matches
Mail list logo
