OT: He probably meant MOP and LAT are not routable, man that brings back
memories.
Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:56:29 -0600
From: John Osmon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is anyone out there setting up routing boundaries differently for
IPv4 and IPv6? I'm
Heya,
My understanding is that there are no known algorithms for fast
updates (and particularly withdrawals) on aggregated FIBs, especially
if those FIBs are stored in CIDR form. This is the prime reason why
all those Cisco 65xx/76xx with MSFC2/PFC2 will be worthless junk in a
couple of
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Eric Gauthier wrote:
Do we have a real date for when this occurs? If you aren't doing uRPF, I
thought they ran up to 256,000 routes. (I may not recall correctly)
We ran into this hiccup a few months ago on a Sup720-3B (well, a 3BXL which
mistakenly had a 3B card in the
On 26-aug-2007, at 7:56, John Osmon wrote:
Is anyone out there setting up routing boundaries differently for
IPv4 and IPv6? I'm setting up a network where it seems to make
sense to route IPv4, while bridging IPv6 -- but I can be talked
out of it rather easily.
Why would you want to do that?
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:56:29 MDT, John Osmon said:
Is anyone out there setting up routing boundaries differently for
IPv4 and IPv6? I'm setting up a network where it seems to make
sense to route IPv4, while bridging IPv6 -- but I can be talked
out of it rather easily.
We decided to map our
I have a network (AS33234) I am trying to support that is downstream from
Onvoy on one of their connections. Our monitoring equipment is located in
AS4452. Our monitoring system is not able to ping their network through
Onvoy. The block seems to be happening at either Global Crossings or
On 8/26/07, Jason LeBlanc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More on point for this thread, I always have new vendors bring in fiber
maps and show me their paths. Images of the intended path specified on
the map are part of the contract, including verbage regarding failover
paths. Once I know where
All,
Below is an email sent to the IETF OPS Area mailing list soliciting
feedback from operators regarding firewalls. We would also appreciate
feedback from the Operators Mailing Lists. Please respond to the OPS Area
mailing list if you have a position on the item below. You can subscribe
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 07:12:54AM -0400, Jason LeBlanc wrote:
OT: He probably meant MOP and LAT are not routable, man that brings back
memories.
Yeah, I realy did, but my fingers typed 'decnet isn't routable' because
that how the folks I worked with at the time described the issue. I was
Hi Ted,
develloping IASON I did run into that problem.
Among other things IASON was meant to read the configuration of
a device and the things connected to it. When e.g. a switch port
was bad, a device was unplugged and plugged into another port,
then IASON was meant to reconfigure the switch,
We did the same thing... It seems easiest from a management
perspective to copy the ipv4 logical layer with v6. The only change on
our side was the fixed prefix length which if anything was a nice
change.
We did run into a few devices (old layer 3 switches) that don't support
ipv6 and on
Hello,
I'm experiencing a lot of problems with about 8 of our outbound mail
gateways to the MSN/Live mail servers throughout the day. Are there any
mail/sysadmins on this list, or anyone that can get me in contact with
someone there, as the general postmaster support is less then fourth
coming
According to this link, which alleges to be from cisco-nsp, an MSFC2 can
hold 256,000 entries in its FIB of which 12,000 are reserved for
Multicast. I do not know if the 12,000 can be set to serve the general
purpose.
The MSFC2 therefore can server 244,000 routes without uRPF turned on.
On 8/27/07, Raymond L. Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'm experiencing a lot of problems with about 8 of our outbound mail
gateways to the MSN/Live mail servers throughout the day. Are there any
mail/sysadmins on this list, or anyone that can get me in contact with
someone there,
On Aug 27, 2007, at 2:49 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
According to this link, which alleges to be from cisco-nsp, an
MSFC2 can hold 256,000 entries in its FIB of which 12,000 are
reserved for Multicast. I do not know if the 12,000 can be set to
serve the general purpose.
The MSFC2 therefore
David Conrad wrote:
On Aug 27, 2007, at 2:49 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
According to this link, which alleges to be from cisco-nsp, an MSFC2
can hold 256,000 entries in its FIB of which 12,000 are reserved for
Multicast. I do not know if the 12,000 can be set to serve the general
purpose.
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, David Conrad wrote:
Any reasonably valid way of predicting when we'll hit 244,000 routes in the
default-free zone?
Um?
Real Soon Now?
...
I must be missing something obvious (or should I be dusting off my unused Y2K
survival gear?)
Unlike Y2K, the end of the useful
Jon,
On Aug 27, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
Any reasonably valid way of predicting when we'll hit 244,000
routes in the default-free zone?
Real Soon Now?
According to Geoff, the BGP table is growing at around 3500 routes
per month, so we're looking at blowing out MSFC2s in about 3
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Jon Lewis wrote:
Of course there are other reasons to upgrade (better CPU, MPLS, IPv6, etc.),
Now if this was a dust old MSFC2 that was like 5 years old I'd say ok.
The problem is twofold:
1. Cisco is still selling the 7600 with the Sup32 bundle (which is
what we
At 8:50 PM -0400 8/27/07, Jon Lewis wrote:
Unlike Y2K, the end of the useful service life up the Sup2 can easily be
pushed further away in time.
ASnum NetsNow NetsAggrNetGain % GainDescription
There's really only 151129 routes you need to have full routes.
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John A. Kilpatrick wrote:
a reasonable solution to this problem - especially if they want to keep
selling the 7600 as a router.
and here I always looked at the 6500 as a switch...
And the 7600 is a router?
:)
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John A. Kilpatrick wrote:
a reasonable solution to this problem - especially if they want to keep
selling the 7600 as a router.
and here I always looked at the 6500 as a switch...
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John A. Kilpatrick wrote:
1. Cisco is still selling the 7600 with the Sup32 bundle (which is what
we bought) and saying you can take a full route table on it. I could already
do MPLS and IPv6 on this box. This is pretty new hardware.
Where are they saying that? The
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John A. Kilpatrick wrote:
a reasonable solution to this problem - especially if they want to keep
selling the 7600 as a router.
and here I always looked at the 6500 as a switch...
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John A. Kilpatrick wrote:
a reasonable solution to this problem - especially if they want to keep
selling the 7600 as a router.
and here I always looked at the 6500 as a switch...
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
And the 7600 is a router?
:)
I thought it was just a 6500 that sommeone got drunk and tipped over on
it's side, like a cow...
I still needle my Cisco rep about that from time to time. IMHO, the
6500/7600 split was one of the dumbest, most
On 8/27/07, Justin M. Streiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought it was just a 6500 that sommeone got drunk and tipped over on
it's side, like a cow...
http://farm.tucows.com/images/2006/07/cow_tipping.jpg :D
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
I thought it was just a 6500 that sommeone got drunk and tipped over on
it's side, like a cow...
And tagged with some white paint.
Though if you've kept up with the latest IOS developments, cisco is
1. Cisco is still selling the 7600 with the Sup32 bundle (which is what
we bought) and saying you can take a full route table on it. I could
already do MPLS and IPv6 on this box. This is pretty new hardware.
Where are they saying that? The Sup32 sounded great until it became clear
that
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hex Star wrote:
On 8/27/07, Justin M. Streiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought it was just a 6500 that sommeone got drunk and tipped over on
it's side, like a cow...
http://farm.tucows.com/images/2006/07/cow_tipping.jpg :D
While its occasionally
On 8/27/07 7:36 PM, Chris L. Morrow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and here I always looked at the 6500 as a switch...
It switches, it routes, it makes julienne fries...
--
John A. Kilpatrick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Email| http://www.hypergeek.net/
Ok, I could have picked a better title. I'm looking for a pointer to a
box (pref. an embedded platform of some kind) that will receive/accept
SNMP traps and sound a real world alarm/siren/klaxon. It can do fancy
things like logging and such, but not strictly required.
I could build one,
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Jon Lewis wrote:
Though if you've kept up with the latest IOS developments, cisco is
finally differentiating the platforms we've assumed for years were only
different in angle and paint. 6500's won't get to run the newest 7600
code.
I think Cisco is coming to their
On 8/27/07 9:39 PM, Donald Stahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thankfully I don't need to take a full table on these routers and their
forwarding speed among the few ports I have is more important than the FIB
size. That said- if I did need the full table I would be royally ticked
off at Cisco
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Deepak Jain wrote:
Where do the FIBs break on older 12000 series and M-series routers? (or
pick the *next* most popular piece of network equipment that is used in
full-routes scenarios).
On the 12000, I'd give the following observations on the state of the
older
35 matches
Mail list logo
