Default routing is recommended to used on stub networks. If you have configured ip routing on your switch and using a dynamic routing protocol you should be fine with a default gateway in case you need to access the switch and routing protocols are not working. Something else you could modify is the Swicth Database Modifier (SMD) to made a better used of the memory. After issuing the command you need to reload the switch.
SDM prefer ? Access Extended-match routing vlan ----- Original Message ---- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 11:42:02 AM Subject: cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 62, Issue 51 Send cisco-nsp mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of cisco-nsp digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: TCP Throughput / MTU problem ? with Cisco 7304 and MPLS VPN's (Mikael Abrahamsson) 2. Re: tcpdump on ios? (Gert Doering) 3. problem of both "ip route 0.0.0.0" and "ip default-gateway" configured (Sami Joseph) 4. Re: problem of both "ip route 0.0.0.0" and "ip default-gateway" configured ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 5. Re: tcpdump on ios? (Luan Nguyen) 6. Re: problem of both "ip route 0.0.0.0" and "ip default-gateway" configured (Jon Lewis) 7. Re: MPLS hardware (Paul Stewart) 8. Re: problem of both "ip route 0.0.0.0" and "ip default-gateway" configured (Paul Stewart) 9. Re: problem of both "ip route 0.0.0.0" and "ip default-gateway" configured (Kim Onnel) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:30:14 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] TCP Throughput / MTU problem ? with Cisco 7304 and MPLS VPN's To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Sat, 12 Jan 2008, Peter Rathlev wrote: > But you still can't (shouldn't) use an interface MTU lower that the MPLS > MTU. Your interface MTU should be larger than the "X" MTU for any "X". Why? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:04:39 +0100 From: Gert Doering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] tcpdump on ios? To: Kim Onnel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Gert Doering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi, On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:21:09AM +0200, Kim Onnel wrote: > if we are talking about hardware switching platforms then i believe it makes > sense that it will only sniff process switched traffic, so why is it useless > then? If you have process switched traffic, something is wrong with your network setup. Some features just plain do not work without CEF (like "MPLS"), others are horribly slow or cause insane amount of CPU load. > IMHO, it is very difficult to design a router that will capture traffic > being hardware switched, am i correct? SPAN/RSPAN/ERSPAN exit and work very well :-) gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: +49-89-35655025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 304 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20080112/9cd02235/attachment-0001.bin ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:52:23 +0200 From: "Sami Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [c-nsp] problem of both "ip route 0.0.0.0" and "ip default-gateway" configured To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello, Someone mentioned that configuring both commands on the same router/switch causes trouble, i wonder if someone can help me understand why? 1) ip route 0.0.0.0 next-hop 2) ip default-gateway next-hop Also why would configuring a couple of static routes with the next hop being an interface name not an ip address cause high CPU ? Thanks, Sam ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:27:12 +0100 (CET) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] problem of both "ip route 0.0.0.0" and "ip default-gateway" configured To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii > Someone mentioned that configuring both commands on the same router/switch > causes trouble, i wonder if someone can help me understand why? > > 1) ip route 0.0.0.0 next-hop > 2) ip default-gateway next-hop Why do you *want* to configure both? 1 is supposed to be used for an L3 box (router), 2 is supposed to be used for an L2 box (switch). > Also why would configuring a couple of static routes with the next hop being > an interface name not an ip address cause high CPU ? If the interface in question is a broadcast medium (Ethernet), the router doesn't know the next-hop address, resulting in a high rate of ARPs. This has been dicussed on the list many times before, and the advice is simple: Don't do it! Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:42:49 -0500 From: "Luan Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] tcpdump on ios? To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 But on a simple router, to track down a problem for a few seconds... no logging console logging buffer xxxx debugging no ip route-cache on interfaces access-list to match or set interface condition debug ip packet detail <access-list> (dump). would do fine? -lmn On Jan 12, 2008 8:04 AM, Gert Doering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:21:09AM +0200, Kim Onnel wrote: > > if we are talking about hardware switching platforms then i believe it > makes > > sense that it will only sniff process switched traffic, so why is it > useless > > then? > > If you have process switched traffic, something is wrong with your > network setup. Some features just plain do not work without CEF (like > "MPLS"), others are horribly slow or cause insane amount of CPU load. > > > IMHO, it is very difficult to design a router that will capture traffic > > being hardware switched, am i correct? > > SPAN/RSPAN/ERSPAN exit and work very well :-) > > gert > -- > USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! > > //www.muc.de/~gert/ > Gert Doering - Munich, Germany > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > fax: +49-89-35655025 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:25:01 -0500 (EST) From: Jon Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] problem of both "ip route 0.0.0.0" and "ip default-gateway" configured To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Someone mentioned that configuring both commands on the same router/switch >> causes trouble, i wonder if someone can help me understand why? >> >> 1) ip route 0.0.0.0 next-hop >> 2) ip default-gateway next-hop > > Why do you *want* to configure both? 1 is supposed to be used for an L3 > box (router), 2 is supposed to be used for an L2 box (switch). AFAIK, ip default-gateway is only used when IP routing is off/unsupported. It can be useful if a device ends up booting into boot IOS that doesn't support routing (like some of the older run from flash platforms during a software upgrade where you have to reboot from ROM, download new code to flash, and then boot the new code). I've got lots of gear with both a default route and an ip default-gateway and no problems. > If the interface in question is a broadcast medium (Ethernet), the router > doesn't know the next-hop address, resulting in a high rate of ARPs. This > has been dicussed on the list many times before, and the advice is simple: > Don't do it! It can work...but its very delicate and really pisses people off when someone with more clue is asked to take over management of the network. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:34:40 -0500 From: "Paul Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS hardware To: "'Jon Lewis'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thanks Jon (and everyone) .. the information flowing in from the list has been AWESOME...;) I'm playing with the idea that maybe we implement a few 7206VXR/NPE-G2's into our core/distribution and feed our 6500's from them ... we are a low traffic network (300-400Mbps routed/switched across the entire infrastructure) ... but then I wonder about that kind of traffic on a 7206VXR and take a complete 360 degree thought pattern.... What I'm trying to figure out is how I can come up with two P routers (for redundancy, not capacity) and a few PE routers. Having said that we have a GSR that isn't doing a lot of stuff right at the moment (Cisco 12012, dual PRP-2, engine 0 cards though), rest is 7206VXR and 6509 (sup2) based... if I could find a way to "wrap" our existing network - today the 6500's work perfectly for their purpose so I can find a way to leave them but bring MPLS in "around" them that would be perfect.... Budget is a HUGE issue which doesn't normally play well with the word MPLS involved...;) Paul -----Original Message----- From: Jon Lewis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:27 PM To: Paul Stewart Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS hardware On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Paul Stewart wrote: > If we leave the whole VPSL component out and want to do "MPLS" - is there > any documents on Cisco.com that outline what the Sup2 platform is capable of > when it comes to MPLS in general? Somewhere I would think that Sup2 can do > *some* MPLS stuff or am I just simply wrong? ;) On regular interfaces/line cards, it won't even tag-switch (i.e. be a P router). If you want MPLS in the 6500, you need a Sup32 or Sup720 (3B or 3BXL)...and if you think full BGP routes is something you might want, then the Sup720-3bxl is your only option in the 6500. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.1/1219 - Release Date: 1/11/2008 10:19 AM ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:36:24 -0500 From: "Paul Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] problem of both "ip route 0.0.0.0" and "ip default-gateway" configured To: "'Jon Lewis'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" We've ran across both before when a layer3 switch is involved that was previously used for layer2 functions only - worked fine, but we did go back and remove the "ip default-gateway" statement... Paul -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Lewis Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 11:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] problem of both "ip route 0.0.0.0" and "ip default-gateway" configured On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Someone mentioned that configuring both commands on the same router/switch >> causes trouble, i wonder if someone can help me understand why? >> >> 1) ip route 0.0.0.0 next-hop >> 2) ip default-gateway next-hop > > Why do you *want* to configure both? 1 is supposed to be used for an L3 > box (router), 2 is supposed to be used for an L2 box (switch). AFAIK, ip default-gateway is only used when IP routing is off/unsupported. It can be useful if a device ends up booting into boot IOS that doesn't support routing (like some of the older run from flash platforms during a software upgrade where you have to reboot from ROM, download new code to flash, and then boot the new code). I've got lots of gear with both a default route and an ip default-gateway and no problems. > If the interface in question is a broadcast medium (Ethernet), the router > doesn't know the next-hop address, resulting in a high rate of ARPs. This > has been dicussed on the list many times before, and the advice is simple: > Don't do it! It can work...but its very delicate and really pisses people off when someone with more clue is asked to take over management of the network. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.1/1220 - Release Date: 1/11/2008 6:09 PM ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:42:00 +0200 From: "Kim Onnel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] problem of both "ip route 0.0.0.0" and "ip default-gateway" configured To: "Jon Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 so if both are configured on a 3750 for example, there is no harm done? On Jan 12, 2008 6:25 PM, Jon Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> Someone mentioned that configuring both commands on the same > router/switch > >> causes trouble, i wonder if someone can help me understand why? > >> > >> 1) ip route 0.0.0.0 next-hop > >> 2) ip default-gateway next-hop > > > > Why do you *want* to configure both? 1 is supposed to be used for an L3 > > box (router), 2 is supposed to be used for an L2 box (switch). > > AFAIK, ip default-gateway is only used when IP routing is off/unsupported. > It can be useful if a device ends up booting into boot IOS that doesn't > support routing (like some of the older run from flash platforms during a > software upgrade where you have to reboot from ROM, download new code to > flash, and then boot the new code). I've got lots of gear with both a > default route and an ip default-gateway and no problems. > > > If the interface in question is a broadcast medium (Ethernet), the > router > > doesn't know the next-hop address, resulting in a high rate of ARPs. > This > > has been dicussed on the list many times before, and the advice is > simple: > > Don't do it! > > It can work...but its very delicate and really pisses people off when > someone with more clue is asked to take over management of the network. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jon Lewis | I route > Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are > Atlantic Net | > _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp<http://www.lewis.org/%7Ejlewis/pgp>for PGP public key_________ > ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp End of cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 62, Issue 51 ***************************************** ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
