On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 22:47 -0500, Justin Shore wrote:
I've got a pair of each. The ME6524 has been a pretty good router for
us so far, other than the lack of L2TP support and no GRE in hardware.
Interesting. The sup720 does GRE in hardware, modulo a few limitations.
Why doesn't the 6524?
Phil Mayers wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 22:47 -0500, Justin Shore wrote:
I've got a pair of each. The ME6524 has been a pretty good router for
us so far, other than the lack of L2TP support and no GRE in hardware.
Interesting. The sup720 does GRE in hardware, modulo a few limitations.
Hello all,
Am going through a bit of pain at the moment trying to get around TE
tunnels breaking RPF checks for multicast.
The common wisdom seems to be to use the mpls traffic-eng
multicast-intact command, however this only seems to work for TE
auto-route.
Is it reasonable to expect that
As a McAfee IDS user with a 95% Cisco network, each time before I buy
another Intrushield I ask myself 'How good is the current ASA IDS box?'
McAfee sell themselves on the low ratio of false negative
detection/blocking even during the worst attacks and full wire speed, ASIC
based throughput with
Sounds like you tried to configure tunnel keys or 2 tunnels with the same
source address. The 6500 requires that an interface be dedicated as a tunnel
source in order to be hw switched. The hardware also doesn't support tunnel
keys, which is required when you are configuring 2 tunnels between the
The 1811 (according to Cisco tests) is about 3x faster. The feature difference
between 12.3 and 12.4T is staggering. The 1811 will support new codes that
Cisco brings out as well.
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sep 18, 2007 12:37 PM
To:
Thanks everyone for your replies.. looks like I can't go wrong...;)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Duncan Maccubbin
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 12:58 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 1811 vs 2621
The 1811
Hi all,
I'm wondering what 12.2(x)SB train people are using successfully for
MPLS deployments on the 7206VXR platform. I currently have 12.2(28)SB6 on most
of my 7206VXR's with NPE-400's. I know we're up to SB9 last I checked, but I
haven't tested that yet. On SB6, when I started
Your default is pointed to the Fast ethernet interface, so it is arp'ing for
everything. The firewall is most likely not proxy arping. You have nat
enabled, with no nat configuration. You have static routes defined for
locally connected interfaces, this isn't doing anything.
David
--
... not widely announced, but available in ME-series switches, from
12.2(40)SE.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps5532/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a0080878947.html
It has some but arguably not all the advantages of MRP or EAPS. Shame no
opportunity for interop, I
[REP] has some but arguably not all the advantages of MRP or
EAPS.
What's missing?
-A
___
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/
Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
[REP] has some but arguably not all the advantages of MRP or
EAPS.
What's missing?
This statement doesn't seem too great to me (though I would want to set
a few boxes up and work out how it works to be sure):
REP does not use an end-to-end polling mechanism
... not widely announced, but available in ME-series switches, from
12.2(40)SE.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps5532/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a0080878947.html
It has some but arguably not all the advantages of MRP or EAPS. Shame no
opportunity for
2007/9/18, Will Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
... not widely announced, but available in ME-series switches, from
12.2(40)SE.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps5532/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a0080878947.html
Hmm, what is the difference between REP and FLEX (which is
Does anyone know if or when Cisco will offer X2 optics with DWDM?
The 3560-E and 3750-E as well as 6708-10GE have X2 optics but
Cisco is only saying they are not currently available in DWDM.
If this is to be the new form factor for Cisco I can't see them not offering
DWDM.
Does anyone have the
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 04:28:59PM -0500, mack wrote:
Does anyone know if or when Cisco will offer X2 optics with DWDM?
The 3560-E and 3750-E as well as 6708-10GE have X2 optics but
Cisco is only saying they are not currently available in DWDM.
If this is to be the new form factor for Cisco I
On Sep 18, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 04:28:59PM -0500, mack wrote:
Does anyone know if or when Cisco will offer X2 optics with DWDM?
The 3560-E and 3750-E as well as 6708-10GE have X2 optics but
Cisco is only saying they are not currently
All -
We have a 4xT1 MLPPP set up with a customer and yesterday it started giving
us problems. For some reason, our side is sending a termreq when the LCP
session is set up, and PPP starts to come up:
Sep 18 14:04:02.585 EDT: Se5/5:0 LCP: State is Open
Sep 18 14:04:02.585 EDT: Se5/5:0 PPP:
Appears to now be resolved, does anybody know what feature name this
became, or where I can find it?
I'm looking at being able to modify VLAN based EoMPLS attachment circuit
perceived MTU such to be able to fool an EoMPLS pseudowire into being able
to come up (to pass RFC4447 MTU check) when
It's not in any shipping code yet.
I happened to check it today as I'm in a Carrier Ethernet Services class.
There is a request in to port the changes to SRA and SRB throttle.
No clue yet where they will allow them to go yet.
Rodney
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 02:00:24AM +0100, David Freedman
On Wednesday 19 September 2007 02:06, Vinny Abello wrote:
I know we're up to SB9 last I
checked, but I haven't tested that yet. On SB6, when I
started configuring mpls ip and mpls traffic-eng
tunnels on interfaces with other routers and the LDP
adjacency comes up, I notice a slight level of
Could it be a bad T1 controller? Try swapping out the T1 card as well, if
possible.
Otherwise, I tend to agree; the cause of your problems as visualised on
the PPP layer most likely is reducible to underlying physical issues on
the physical framing layer.
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Chris Hale
22 matches
Mail list logo
