Before a couple of months ago I had to agree with you Kristo.
But maybe not now. ;)
I just had to work an issue with overruns on the NPE-G100 Gig ports
ona 7304 because it couldn't keep up.
The customer upgraded to the NSE-150 and in the lab it did line
rate GIG with no issues. The RP CPU in
You can get the same type thing with Object tracking of static routes.
Search for it on CCO.
You can monitor the state of the FW and have the route adjusted accordingly.
Rodney
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 09:57:06AM -0400, fonesurj wrote:
I have a router connected to a switch on Fa0/0. I have a
to it.
I'm not seeing where the functionality required is available.
There is no way to do it on arp.
- Original Message -
From: Rodney Dunn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: fonesurj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [c
Duh...
I forgot.
You can do it today.
Learn EEM and TCL.
Check 'sh arp' output. Look for your entry.
If it's not there change the route.
Trigger another script to watch for the arp to come back.
When it does add the route back.
Rodney
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 01:25:31PM -0400, Rodney Dunn
Post it on Cisco Beyond if you get it to work for others to use.
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 12:34:38PM -0400, fonesurj wrote:
Duh is right. I know TCL a tiny bit, I could hammer that out!
- Original Message -
From: Rodney Dunn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: fonesurj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:05:38AM +0200, Gordon Bezzina wrote:
Hello,
It seems I need some advise. As you remember some months ago I mention to
you the intention of moving
Up from the 7500 to the 7600. I am now happy to tell you that I have a 7600
+ SUP720-3BXL standing besides
My desk. I
64 byte no burst bidirectional from Ixia.
GE to GE with no features.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 09:43:25AM -0400, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Euan Galloway wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 08:49:53AM -0400, Rodney Dunn wrote:
Here is a rough spreadsheet with the numbers we
You need to use an extended ACL.
ie:
access-list 144 permit ip 1.1.1.0 0.0.0.255 2.2.2.0 0.0.0.255
That says any traffic with a matching source of 1.1.1.0/24 going
to a destination in the 2.2.2.0/24 range then send it to the PBR
next hop configured.
If you have overlapping route-map entries
If no QOS then 12.4(11)T throttle latest on CCO.
If QOS for now 12.4(4)XD throttle latest.
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 01:26:50PM -0700, Michael Long wrote:
Does anyone have any recommendations on images for the 7200 with npe-2g?
It's basically a network of lots of ds3's, mpls, gige's etc...
The title of that bug is:
CSCsi66768 odr route can not be redistributed into ospf
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 02:04:47AM -0300, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
We have been suffering a RIP bug on C7600, IOS 12.3(33)SRB, that
causes ugly tracebacks, with no public description yet;
The TAC engineer is
Good suggestion. Let me see if I can convince development to code it.
We have some of those things with the event log infrastructure already.
UUT_#sh monitor event-trace ssm ?
all Show all the traces in current buffer
backShow trace from this far back in the past
clock
generate any unavailability due this command (despite
its keywords).
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rodney Dunn
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 11:48 AM
To: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
Cc: cisco-nsp
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] display last lines
I saw this exact problem from a customer a few months ago. What his
turned out to be was some extra latency on one of the T1 links.
I don't remember if it was in one direction or not though.
How about trying the combinations of 2xT1 bundles to see if you
can isolate one T1 as a particular
Basically the same.
Rodney
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:15:25PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Wednesday 30 May 2007, Rodney Dunn wrote:
Not aimed at Justin but to set the record straight..
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 02:35:16PM -0400, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Kanagaraj
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 05:27:24PM -0400, Scott Dunn wrote:
Hi
We are seeing 2-4% packet loss on a 60Mbps link with 3725 when traffic
reaches about 35-40Mbps (based 30s load interval) (FYI the circuit has
been tested multiple times and is clean). I suspect that the traffic
is bursting to
Can you draw a jpeg that shows the layout?
That's a lot easier than trying to draw it from email.
Rodney
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 01:11:38PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
Hi folks...
A while back (month or so) I posed a few questions about Policy Based
Routing - thinking that was best way to
designed in to it.
Rodney
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 01:03:35AM +0930, Brad Gould wrote:
How about
rtr#sh log last x
where x=minutes?
Brad
Rodney Dunn wrote:
Good suggestion. Let me see if I can convince development to code it.
We have some of those things with the event
I've worked a couple of issues with the NSE-150 if
you want to elaborate on what problem(s) you are seeing.
I don't consider myself an expert on it yet though.
Rodney
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 06:08:00PM +0930, Brad Gould wrote:
Hi,
Anyone else running 7304 NSE-150's?
Having issues?
How are you identifying voice traffic?
I'll probably have to think of a hack to make what you are
asking for to work.
ea On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 01:11:38PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
Hi folks...
A while back (month or so) I posed a few questions about Policy Based
Routing - thinking
12 18 666 5060/6000 0 Multilink
event
-Original Message-
From: Rodney Dunn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:30 AM
To: Sean Shepard
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Multilink PPP (MLPPP) Asymmetrical Throughput
Kamal,
string is bootdisk:s32p3-adventerprisek9_wan-mz.V122_18_ZY_THROTTLE_070425
That looks like some datecode image on a throttle. I can't find it
so I couldn't try to decode the crash.
Can you try the 12.2(18)ZY that is on CCO or is your image one given
to you after that?
Rodney
That does not look right.
Can you get 'debug ip os adj' and flap the vlan 50
on either A or C?
Before you do it get: sh ip os int vlan 50 on both
Rodney
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:57:39PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 05:00 AM 07-06-07 -0400, Rodney Dunn wrote:
Also depends if you have
What exactly are you trying to accomplish with this configuration?
What type of box is this on? I ask because there are some hooks
to QOS for the HW crypto engines for LLQ.
I have no idea what impact it would have for your scenario
with shaping on the tunnel.
What we really recommend is to have
True. The only drawback of that is that only applies to TCP so
your udp still has the issue.
Personally, if I were designing it and had a way to force
all my workstations down I would strongly consider it if their
main data transport is over some form of tunneled infrastructure.
The performance
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 01:34:09PM +0300, Dan IOSUB wrote:
Hi Rikard,
try to configure on interface:
no ip route-cache
That's really should not be a suggested action unless it's the
last option available. That forces traffic to be process switched
potentially.
no ip mroute-cache
That
If there isn't a port level command to do L2 policing you
are out of luck I think.
The only thing you could try but I doubt this would work
is to define a L2 ACL that matches on the dmac going out
that port and try a MQC policy to police.
I don't know if that will work or not. Haven't tried it.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:40:47PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007, Rikard Stemland Skjelsvik wrote:
Actually we route to the LAN in the other end out the WAN interface
ip route x.x.x.x 255.255.255.192 FastEthernet0
Why do you do this rather than routing to an IP address
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:50:33PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 06:22:45AM -0700, David Barak wrote:
I first encountered route to the (sub) interface in
the context of frame-relay subinterfaces. If there is
another route to that IP address (for instance, a
We must have missed that throttle somehow.
Can anyone verify a SRB image?
I don't think it's worth touching SXF at this stage.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:34:03AM +1000, Dale Shaw wrote:
On 6/13/07, Kevin Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except under 12.2(18)SXF9 (and recent SG and SE):
There is none.
If you want it on a 76xx today please use 12.2(33)SRB.
For the 65xx wait for SXH.
Rodney
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:15:10PM -0700, Srividya Rao wrote:
Hey all,
I have been looking for BFD Version 1 support on Cisco switches. Can someone
please point me to the right IOS
I'm pretty booked right now but I'll try to see what happened
with this.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:20:58AM +0300, Tarko Tikan wrote:
hey,
Can anyone verify a SRB image?
#sh ver | i ^Cisco
Cisco IOS Software, c7600rsp72043_rp Software
(c7600rsp72043_rp-ADVENTERPRISEK9-M), Version
Provide more information:
sh ver
sh stack
and the crashinfo file.
that way we could decode the traceback and see if there is a matching
bug.
If you have a service contract please open a TAC case.
Rodney
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 01:07:07PM -0300, Juan Angel Menendez wrote:
144_(config-if)#ip load-sharing ?
per-destination Deterministic distribution
per-packet Random distribution
CEF default isn't per destination it's a per src/dst hash.
We've added the ability to hash on L4 ports too it's just
not shipping yet.
Rodney
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at
?
;) You need to ask your application vendors.
Seriously, sometimes it does affect them like ftp downloads and
other times it doesn't like web browsing.
It's hard to make a blanket statement about it.
That L4 stuff will be VERY kewl
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Rodney Dunn
in the hardware
forwarding path...so I guess you could say from that perspective it is
hardware dependent.
Rodney Dunn wrote:
144_(config-if)#ip load-sharing ?
per-destination Deterministic distribution
per-packet Random distribution
CEF default isn't per destination it's a per
Justin,
The TAC engineer that had your TAC case on this originally sits
beside me. :) Isn't it the same issue?
Did you reconfigure the L1/L2 routers such that your L1/L2 to
L2 upstream peer is in a different area?
Rodney
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 08:09:42AM -0500, Justin Shore wrote:
During
;)
Let them do it and hit the first nasty dCEF bug with it and
then find out we will not fix it. They will wish they
didn't try it.
There is an advantage to doing what 90+% of our other
customers do. You are less likely to hit bugs someone else
already hit and we are fixed.
It's the wrong box
You may want to look in to code that has, if it's shipping yet,
bfd triggered HSRP.
Rodney
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 01:00:01PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry the delay..out of office.
No, no tracking. It seems like a process problem. HSRP compete with
other process during WAN failure
I don't.
Rodney
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 02:25:12PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Rodney,
We are looking forward this feature. Last news we received is that there
is no release date for 7609. Do you have different information?
tks
-Original Message-
From: ext Rodney Dunn
Without asking you for more data on the crashes themselves
the general recommendation nowadays for the 75xx is 12.4(16)
code. The reason is 12.4 code will be the bugfix path for
the rest of the 75xx's support life.
That is where we are advising all 75xx customers migrate
to if they are not on
, training and
pre-deployment op check...
Thoughts?
Jim
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rodney Dunn
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 2:56 PM
To: Kevin Graham
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Reasons *not* terminate
I'd have to check the IGMP spec...what does (in text) the
actual IGMP report look like?
Where did you capture it? Make sure you span the port going
to the router.
Rodney
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 03:55:04PM +0300, Matti Saarinen wrote:
What could be causing the following problem with Cisco
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:01:37AM +0300, Matti Saarinen wrote:
Collins, Richard (SNL US) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might be useful to see additional information such as:
c3845#show ip igmp interface gi0/1.180
c3845#show ip igmp groups
Those commands show no groups relating to
For accuracy for any drop I'm not sure you will be able
to beat a MQC policing policy that just matches
and permits. Then set the rate close to line rate
and watch for exceed and violate drops via SNMP polls
of the MQC mibs.
Or just watch for output drops because that is what should
happen when
There was a long set of discussions around this and
unfortunately I lost full track of what the conclusion
was.
But from what I can tell it appears it will act
on a PAUSE frame but no generate one.
Are you running in GIG or 100/full?
Rodney
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 07:36:33AM -0700, Kevin
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:54:30AM -0400, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Jeff Crowe wrote:
Hi all,
I am trying to configure a router that will be able to handle the following:
Multichannel T3 (probably PA-MC-T3),
Couple of routed FE ports
Gig Uplink to switching fabric
Sorry to change
If you want a fancy qos policy on an interface apply it
via an MQC policy (policy-map and class-map combination).
You didn't explain how you are trying to configure it.
No all MQC configurations are supported on all hw forwarding
platforms.
Rodney
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:52:24PM +0200,
I missed it. What messages are you talking about?
UUT(config-router)#no bgp log-neighbor-changes ?
cr
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 12:32:49PM -0400, Murali Krishna wrote:
But these meesages are in the router log and I need to see other log
messages like interface up/down, is there any command
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 10:18:41PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007, Ahmad Cheikh Moussa wrote:
Hi!
David Granzer wrote:
you can not use bandwidth on input direction.
I've got the same error, when I use the priority
command. It doesn't matter what I configure in
In working with the IOS Release Operations team I think I've convinced
them to try something a little different for the
first release of 12.5(1). This release is a little different
in that there are no new features in it. There are some
infrastructure changes around the forwarding paths to
improve
My goal to get started was 10 people. I'm at 7.
I wanted to get the process started as soon as possible.
3 more...any takers?
Rodney
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 02:12:25PM -0400, Rodney Dunn wrote:
In working with the IOS Release Operations team I think I've convinced
them to try something
We don't support static nat with route-maps at all.
We had a bug to block the CLI but it appears it got
exposed again.
I'm filing a bug now to get that CLI blocked again.
Rodney
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 02:13:27AM -0500, Scott Mace wrote:
Is the static NAT route-map feature supported in
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 11:17:09AM +0200, Bernd Ueberbacher wrote:
Hi there!
My L2TPv3 tunnel is currently running fine, but I have two short but
stupid questions:
Is it possible to interfere the L2TP traffic with access-lists?
No. Not on the access side.
I have to xconnect to the
You are filling up the rx ring and depelting the fifo buffers to the
chipset before the processor can service that rx_interrupt.
That's the most common cause of ignores on a software switching
platform.
What is th rx_ring depth in 'sh controllers'? I bet it's 64.
We've had to bump it up to 128
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 02:37:17PM +0200, Bernd Ueberbacher wrote:
Rodney Dunn wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 11:17:09AM +0200, Bernd Ueberbacher wrote:
Hi there!
My L2TPv3 tunnel is currently running fine, but I have two short but
stupid questions:
Is it possible to interfere
card.
Router# #show align
No alignment data has been recorded.
No spurious memory references have been recorded.
Regards,
Masood Ahmad Shah
-Original Message-
From: Rodney Dunn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:14 AM
To: Masood Ahmad Shah
I'd be interested to know this as well. I helped draft the FN on this
one to make sure they were clear.
In the fixes that went in 15T1 there was really only one, rather large,
change to improve the dataplane performance. Others were mostly bug
functionality problems.
The NPE-G2 performance
SIMM (Sector size 256K).
Configuration register is 0x2102
--
Regards,
Rafi
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Rodney Dunn wrote:
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:52:26 -0400
From: Rodney Dunn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Hank Nussbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net, [EMAIL PROTECTED
running 9T. The 2 running 11T have, IMO, very high CPU (60+%
average durning middle of day). The 9T barely runs 20%.
I am planning on upgrading one of the 11Ts to see if the CPU issue was
resolved. I will post up when I get some data.
tv
- Original Message -
From: Rodney Dunn
There are a bunch of fancy ways to do this with EEM.
TCL and watching SNMP values...and probably even some
resource triggers I don't know how to use.
But a simple one would be to set a CPU threshold syslog
and trigger on that in an applet.
ie:
process cpu threshold type process rising 20
Tuc,
What does 'sh ip sla mon stat' show for that probe?
What does debug track show?
debug ip sla monitor etcc...
Also, it's confusing. But it's bet to set the track
up/down to at least a 2x multiple of the sla probe frequency.
Meaning if you get a notification the probe is down
and you delay
I'm pretty sure Reuben that it's controlling the allocation of
labels to prefixes. I'd need to dig a bit more on it.
How many routes do you have in the global routing table?
'sh ip route summ'.
Aug 3 04:42:37.479: %TIB-3-REMOTETAG: 150.82.0.0/255.255.0.0, peer
61.84.96.254:0; tag 53643;
Yeah..after you reload look at the free memory. If it's low right after
a reload you don't have enough memory. If it decreases over time you have
a leak that needs to be debugged.
It hasn't been reloaded yet, but:
199city-rB2-dcs01#show mem summary
HeadTotal(b)
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 04:12:31PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
I have a question regarding reliable static routing backup using object
tracking - see this URL
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5413/products_feature_guide09186a00801d862d.html
basically this
Can you get the debug track and debug ip sla mon/event
outputs?
Remember, this is best effort support and we try our best
to get to them as soon as we can.
Rodney
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 02:05:52PM -0400, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
Rodney/Anybody...
Help?
This is really
Hi,
Network setup is pretty trivial - three routers running MPLS (LDP
full-mesh) to support 20+ MPLS VPNs. Tricky part, is that customer is
asking to secure that infrastructure by running IPSEC (3DES). As far
as I know, I can not run LDP over Tunnel interfaces, and crypto-maps
-secret, are there any plans to address this issue in near
future?
A
-Original Message-
From: Rodney Dunn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:54 PM
To: Andris Zarins
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS and IPSEC co-working
Can you set up remote access for me so I can look?
I might see something quicker that way than going
back and forth in email.
I'll send you my ip address offline so you can poke a hole.
Rodney
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 10:59:14PM -0400, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
Hi,
I'm getting the
shape average isn't supported in the parent policy when applied
to the PVC directly?
Show us the config.
- Inbound Marking with outbound policying does not work, since the
ToS-copying feature is not available, too
?
You inbound mark and the TOS bits should be copied to the mGRE/IPSEC
That's right. I've seen that from the BU's that it's
not currently supported. I hear it's on the roadmap
to be officially supported.
Rodney
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 07:04:09AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you heard such affirmation before?
TE FRR is not supported over Etherchannel
Are you seeing huge buffer failures in 'sh buff'?
You could adjust that size as it's needed to reassemble the packet.
There is a reassembly limit too but I can't remeber how large it is.
Rodney
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 08:46:24AM -0700, insan praja wrote:
Dear all,
My customer, test my
No.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 04:05:03PM -0400, Adam Greene wrote:
Hi,
Time to upgrade from 12.2(13)T16. All this router is doing is BGP and
supporting some 802.1q subinterfaces. It's got a PA-GE card with a 100Base-SX
GBIC inserted.
I don't foresee any problems upgrading to 12.4,
Can you get it in that condition and get a 'sh controller' and
'show int'?
It sounds like the ingress rx driver is locking up.
Try the latest 12.4 mainline code (12.4(16)) if you have it in the
lab and see if it's there too.
Rodney
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 11:45:29AM -0400, Adam Greene wrote:
;)
The dts is Defect Tracking System.
I can't remember but I think the dd, ok no comment there :),
is distributed defect.
Rodney
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 11:53:58AM -0300, Leonardo Souza wrote:
Does anybody know what's the meaning of ddts?
sincerely,
Leonardo.
Flickr
It's not supported anywhere that I know of right now so yes.
I've seen some references that it may be in SRC for 76xx.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 01:46:03PM -0500, Justin Shore wrote:
Will this also be a problem on SR? I'm getting ready to work on this
myself.
Thanks
Justin
Rodney Dunn
Bad idea because it causes process switching.
Don't expect high throughput out of it.
Rodney
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 03:40:55PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
nat on a stick
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk361/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094430.shtml
Church, Charles wrote:
Do you have a TAC SR open on this?
I just saw someone ask this a few days ago and I told them it's
a bug.
We support CEF switching of data over a MLPPP bundle with
MPLS.
Are you running MPLSoMLPPP or are you just running the MLPPP
interface in a VRF?
MTP-C72-02#sh inter mul 1 switching
Aaron,
It's a bug.
CSCse04192
Internally found cosmetic defect: Resolved (R)
NRT:lreuse:Can't write label reuse data to standby RP pdata file
was fixed in 12.0(32)SY3.
Is this seen on 32SY3?
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:19:53AM -0400, Aaron Daubman wrote:
Greetings,
I just saw these two
Please use #1.
#3 causes process switching and that's a very bad thing to do.
Rodney
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 04:41:58PM +0800, Lincoln Dale (ltd) wrote:
I need to log traffic going trougth cisco 3825 router to syslog server.
Not all traffic data, i only need to log new connections.
How
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 09:09:05AM -0400, Jay Young wrote:
I have put an ME6524 (s6523-advipservicesk9-mz.122-18.ZU2.bin) in to
replace a 7200 and one of the interfaces has a rate-limit. When I do a show
int rate-limit I see:
GigabitEthernet1/1.460
Input
matches: access-group 100
and
see if the problem persists even then at 80Mbps in / 40Mbps out levels.
Thanks,
Adam
- Original Message -
From: Rodney Dunn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Adam Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:13 PM
Subject: Re
end
Thanks for your help
Kind Regards
Arda
On 8/29/07, Rodney Dunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have a TAC SR open on this?
I just saw someone ask this a few days ago and I told them it's
a bug.
We support CEF switching of data over a MLPPP bundle
CSCsj25679
Externally found moderate defect: Resolved (R)
%SYS-4-CHUNKMALLOCFAIL: Could not allocate chunks for CEF: arp throt
should be fixed in 12.4(17).
It can be safely ignored.
In the fix the error message you see is simply backed out.
Rodney
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 01:11:21PM -0400,
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
I'll ask and see what I can find out for ya.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 07:42:47PM +0100, David Freedman wrote:
It would be most useful to us in 7200 code right now...
(we are unlikely to trunk on 7600)
Dave.
-Original Message-
From: Ian Dickinson
To: Rodney Dunn
Cc: David
No. You can ignore those messages.
Rodney
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 09:33:30AM -0500, Church, Charles wrote:
There was a PSIRT just released last week that talked about
vulnerabilities of the loopback addresses used in the EOBC on the 65/76
devices. Maybe someone is trying to take advantage of
Code version?
I see some bugs with this that appear to be fixed in 12.2(33)SXH.
I'm trying to understand if it's card specific.
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 11:01:14AM -0700, Raman Sud wrote:
Thanks...
Every time I wr mem on the 6500 the damn thing started giving me this
error...Strange enough,
Cisco IOS software keeps track of per-interface counters for unknown protocol
drops. However,
these per-interface counters, that record packets with unknown (or
unconfigured) protocol
received, are not displayed in the cmdBoldshow interfacesnocmdBold command.
This is a request to display those
The TAC engineer should open a document bug and have it fixed.
As for the CLI we try to catch and prevent as many as we can.
We don't get them all unfortunately.
Rodney
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 09:13:06AM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
So after over a year of issues with ACL's/CBAC I get the word.
I hear what you are getting at and I agree for the most part.
I push for the right thing as much as possible.
But just for the record...
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 09:50:28PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007, Joe Maimon wrote:
So after over a year of issues with ACL's/CBAC I get
Christian,
I need to check this in the lab but if you look at the vpn table are
we not allocating a VPNV4 label for each prefix when it's in the
VRF?
I know some improvements to BGP were made in SRB2 but I haven't
looked the exact details up to see if it would impact this particular
scneario.
Estimate (always subject change) 11/23/07.
Rodney
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 02:32:43PM +0100, Ian MacKinnon wrote:
Anybody heard of an SXH1 release date yet?
The date on the current release notes keeps updating with no visible
changes to the content...
Ian MacKinnon wrote:
Phil Mayers
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 04:47:10PM +1000, Matt Carter wrote:
Firstly, I'm no expert in Cisco buffers, but it seems you have failures all
the way up to and including the Huge buffer pool, which I would think is
most certainly going to result in packet drop.
Yes. But those buffers are *only* for
What code?
Are you seeing any throttles?
What's the fanout for the multicast?
Rodney
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 10:12:08PM -0400, Vincent Aniello wrote:
On a 7206VXR with a NPE-G1 processor I am seeing input errors on a
Gigabit Ethernet interface. The input errors are due to ignored
Almost every time I've ever been part of a troubleshooting session
for Gige overruns and ignores it's microburst on the segment and the
receiving router can't process the frames quick enough.
It's so hard to debug because without an analyzer on the wire you
can't prove it's a micro burst.
The
?
--Vincent
-Original Message-
From: Rodney Dunn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:52 PM
To: Justin Shore
Cc: Vincent Aniello; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] RX No Buff Errors on 7206 w/NPE-G1
Almost every time I've ever been part
The reordering overhead for that many T1's will be huge. We don't recommend
that many.
Rodney
reOn Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 05:21:43PM -0800, Joseph Jackson wrote:
Just to answer everyones questions here's the story.
One end has a 7206 NPE G1 with 1 gig of ram
other end has 7204 NPE 300
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 11:14:37AM +0300, Raymond Macharia wrote:
hi virendra,
Per packet load sharing is CPU intensive
CPU intensive for who?
and if you are running something
like voice then it is not recommended that you run per packet.
Even with per packet you will never get exact
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:36:56AM -0800, virendra rode // wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Graham wrote:
The thing is the cef is load-balancing packets across equal-cost links
on a per-destination which is how its suppose to be which I get it. The
issue is my
It's a bug.
Looks like:
CSCsi93916
Externally found severe defect: Open (O)
Alignment Error/ Traceback with IP NAT.
that isn't fixed yet.
Rodney
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 09:20:58PM +0100, Ahmad Cheikh-Moussa wrote:
Hi!
I have a 2801 router with 12.4(18). The router shows me alignment
1 - 100 of 445 matches
Mail list logo
