Best regards, Danny Pinto +91 924356708
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 9:29 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: 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: Strange IP address (M K) > 2. Re: TAC hits a new record level of aggravation... (Mark Tinka) > 3. Re: XR 12000/GSR - 4.2.3 VRRP IPv6 Global virtual address. > (Mark Tinka) > 4. Re: vs Netscaler loadbalancer (Gert Doering) > 5. Re: DFC bootflash? (Abidin Kahraman) > 6. Re: ME3600x-cx 153-3.S any major pitfalls? (Per Carlson) > 7. Re: ip tcp adjust-mss ([email protected]) > 8. Re: ME3600x-cx 153-3.S any major pitfalls? (Lukas Tribus) > 9. Sup2T-XL vs Sup720BXL FIB TCAM (Christian Schmit) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:26:43 +0200 >From: M K <[email protected]> >To: "Harold Ritter (hritter)" <[email protected]> >Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Strange IP address >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1256" > >Hi , Thanks for the replyI usually disable the default IPv4 behavior of BGP >peering establishment using no bgp default ipv4-unicast and never faced this , >but I faced it when I configured directly >Thanks again for the replies >BR, > >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> CC: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Strange IP address >> Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 23:51:51 +0000 >> >> Hi, >> >> There?s at least two alternatives you can use. You either need to use a >> route-map under AF ipv4 to change the next-hop explicitly for the ipv4 >> prefixes or you can run a separate session for v4 ad v6 prefixes >> respectively. The latter is generally recommended. >> >> Regards >> >> Harold >> >> >> Le 2013-11-03 08:54, ? M K ? <[email protected]> a ?crit : >> >> >Hi Sander and thanks for the replyI actually converted the numbers into >> >hexadecimal , and am running dual stacked network IPv4 and IPv6but how am >> >going to block this IP address from appearing in the show ip bgp output ? >> >Thanks again >> >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Strange IP address >> >> From: [email protected] >> >> Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:35:07 +0100 >> >> CC: [email protected] >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> > Hi all I was working on a test LAB on GNS3 , the Lab contains both >> >>IPv4 and IPv6 with different routing protocolsThe starnge issue is that >> >>when I issue the show ip bgp on one of the routers >> >> > I find the IP address 32.1.1.146 as a next-hopdid anyone face this >> >>before ? >> >> >> >> Can you show your config? I suspect you are sending IPv6 routes to an >> >>IPv4 BGP neighbour or vice versa. >> >> >> >> Converting your IPv4 address to hex: >> >> - 32 = 0x20 >> >> - 1 = 0x01 >> >> - 1 = 0x01 >> >> - 146 = 0x92 >> >> >> >> It wouldn't surprise me if one of your IPv6 addresses starts with >> >>2001:0192: (which would be in the IANA reserved block for protocol >> >>assignments) >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Sander >> >> >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >> >https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >> >archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >> > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:26:49 +0200 >From: Mark Tinka <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [c-nsp] TAC hits a new record level of aggravation... >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >On Tuesday, November 05, 2013 12:56:27 AM Justin M. Streiner >wrote: > >> And the cool new thing will never be 'done' either. >> Perpetual development is often a bad thing because it >> leads to loss of focus, scope creep, and lots of other >> buzzwords that generally have a negative connotation. >> Cisco's marketing group having a bunch of 'innovators' >> they need to keep busy, and Cisco's web team having a >> bunch of developers that they need to keep busy is not a >> valid reason to innovate for innovation's sake. > >+1. > >Mark. >-------------- next part -------------- >A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >Name: signature.asc >Type: application/pgp-signature >Size: 836 bytes >Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. >URL: ><https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20131105/298cae17/attachment-0001.sig> > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:40:54 +0200 >From: Mark Tinka <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Cc: Danny Pinto <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [c-nsp] XR 12000/GSR - 4.2.3 VRRP IPv6 Global virtual > address. >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >On Tuesday, November 05, 2013 08:50:01 AM Oliver Boehmer >(oboehmer) wrote: > >> vrrp on xr requires a linklocal address to be configured, > >This is the case with IOS and IOS XE as well. > >> best use autoconfig: > >Not sure whether this is supported on IOS and IOS XE. > >I know that if you go manual on Juniper, you need to go >manual on IOS and IOS XE (even though Juniper, by default, >automatically sets the link-local address for VRRP). > >Mark. >-------------- next part -------------- >A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >Name: signature.asc >Type: application/pgp-signature >Size: 836 bytes >Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. >URL: ><https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20131105/1fcdf98c/attachment-0001.sig> > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:20:19 +0100 >From: Gert Doering <[email protected]> >To: Arne Larsen / Region Nordjylland <[email protected]> >Cc: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [c-nsp] vs Netscaler loadbalancer >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Hi, > >On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 05:57:56AM +0000, Arne Larsen / Region Nordjylland >wrote: >> We have bought to new load balancers Netscaler SDX11500 from Citrix > >In addition to what Roland said - if I remember right, this box is Xen >based, so you need to configure "physical LACP channels" on the Xen side, and >then attach virtual instances to virtual switches inside Xen (possibly with >VLAN tagging on the physical channel). > >So one physical LACP channel will give you an arbitrary (well) amount of >virtual machines. > >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: 305 bytes >Desc: not available >URL: ><https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20131105/d69f7097/attachment-0001.sig> > >------------------------------ > >Message: 5 >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 11:14:53 +0000 >From: Abidin Kahraman <[email protected]> >To: P G <[email protected]> >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [c-nsp] DFC bootflash? >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > >I liked your email address. Very creative :) > >DFC bootflash is used for the crash files. In the event of a crash the file is >written to it.. > >Do "show platform hardware capacity flash? and check if you can see a >bootflash on the linecard.. You may need to raise a TAC case if there is no >bootflash.. > >Regards >Abidin > >On 3 Nov 2013, at 21:27, P G <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What is DFC bootflash for? >> >> #dir dfc#3-bootflash:/ >> >> No files in directory >> >> >> on the other card it just reports error when I try to show the DFC >> bootflash and it's not reporting the size of DFC bootflash >> >> >> When I tried to upgrade the rommon on the WS-X6704-10GE with DFC3BXL, one >> card reported error because it does not have DFC bootflash while the other >> one with DFC bootflash finished upgrading successfully. These 2 line cards >> have different revision numbers. >> >> >> But so far the card without DFC bootflash is functional. Does it need a RMA >> at some point? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:52:00 +0100 >From: Per Carlson <[email protected]> >To: "Waris Sagheer (waris)" <[email protected]> >Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ME3600x-cx 153-3.S any major pitfalls? >Message-ID: > <CAOURYnCwzhRu4CU48LVU3zFKjQOTW2=encvtgopmf3qu-i4...@mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >Hi Waris. > >On 2 October 2013 17:51, Waris Sagheer (waris) <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Nick, >> It would be 10/30/2013. >> >> >> From: Nick Hilliard <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 4:38 AM >> To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ME3600x-cx 153-3.S any major pitfalls? >> >> On 02/10/2013 05:29, Waris Sagheer (waris) wrote: >> BU would also recommend 15.3(3)S1 if you are planning to upgrade to 15.3(3)S >> code base. >> >> Do you have a release date for 15.3(3)S1? >> >> Nick > >It's now November but AFAICS there is no S1 release available yet. Do >you have an updated release date? > >-- >Pelle > >"D?? e ?, vett ja?, skrek ja, f?r ja ble rasen, >?? i ?a ? e ?, h?rer han lite, d?? e ?, ? i ?a ? e ?" >- Gustav Fr?ding, 1895 > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 7 >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 08:24:48 -0500 >From: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ip tcp adjust-mss >Message-ID: > <of148ef318.eed96038-on85257c1a.004929cd-85257c1a.0049a...@videotron.com> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > >> On ASR1k the MSS adjustment is done on the QFP (the ESP or "in >hardware"). >> Again, this behavior varies from platform to platform. > >Note: IPv4 only, for now. IPv6 may be in 15.4(1)S. >See http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nsp/ipv6/45433 > >/JF > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 8 >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:22:25 +0100 >From: Lukas Tribus <[email protected]> >To: Per Carlson <[email protected]>, "Waris Sagheer (waris)" > <[email protected]> >Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ME3600x-cx 153-3.S any major pitfalls? >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >Hi! > > >> It's now November but AFAICS there is no S1 release available yet. Do >> you have an updated release date? > >Looks like S1 was removed again from CCO, because I downloaded it a week >ago and upgraded 4 (less important) boxes. > >So, should I panic and downgrade? > > >ME3600#show ver | inc Version 15|uptime|Compiled >Cisco IOS Software, ME360x Software (ME360x-UNIVERSALK9-M), Version 15.3(3)S1, >RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) >Compiled Thu 24-Oct-13 21:01 by prod_rel_team >ME3600 uptime is 6 days, 23 hours, 44 minutes >ME3600# > > > > >Regards, > >Lukas > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 9 >Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:13:22 +0100 >From: "Christian Schmit" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: [c-nsp] Sup2T-XL vs Sup720BXL FIB TCAM >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > >Today I tested a Sup2T-XL and a Sup720BXL in the lab with full bgp feeds for >ipv4 and ipv6. >To my understanding the hardware capacity for the FIB TCAM is the same for >Sup720-BXL and Sup2T-XL. >Sup2T-XL output of "sh platform hardware capacity":CAT6500-RC2TXL#sh platform >hardware capacity | begin L3 Forwarding Resources >L3 Forwarding Resources FIB TCAM usage: >Total Used %Used 72 bits (IPv4, MPLS, EoM) > 1048576 465980 44% 144 bits (IP mcast, IPv6) > 524288 14903 3% 288 bits (IPv6 mcast) > 262144 1 1% > detail: Protocol Used >%Used IPv4 465978 > 44% MPLS 1 > 1% EoM 1 > 1% > IPv6 14894 >3% IPv4 mcast 9 >1% IPv6 mcast 1 >1% > Adjacency usage: Total Used >%Used 1048576 >32018 3% > >Sup720BXL output of "sh platform hardware capacity": (FIB TCAM partitioned >with "mls cef maximum-routes ip 768") >CAT6500-RC720BXL#sh platform hardware capacity | begin L3 Forwarding Resources > >L3 Forwarding Resources > FIB TCAM usage: Total Used >%Used > 72 bits (IPv4, MPLS, EoM) 802816 467348 >58% > 144 bits (IP mcast, IPv6) 122880 14970 > 12% > > detail: Protocol Used %Used > IPv4 467338 >58% > MPLS 9 >1% > EoM 1 >1% > > IPv6 14963 >12% > IPv4 mcast 4 >1% > IPv6 mcast 3 >1% > > Adjacency usage: Total Used %Used > 1048576 1481 > 1% > >The release notes say: > >-XL mode: > >? IPv4 and MPLS: Up to 1,007,000 routes >? IPv4 multicast and IPv6 unicast and multicast: Up to 503,000 routes > >"These are the theoretical maximum numbers of routes for the supported >protocols (the maximums are not supported simultaneously):" > >The above output of the Sup2T-XL seems to say that the Sup2T-XL has a larger >FIB TCAM (2M) than the Sup720-BXL. > >Christian > > > > >------------------------------ > >Subject: Digest Footer > >_______________________________________________ >cisco-nsp mailing list >[email protected] >https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > >------------------------------ > >End of cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 132, Issue 13 >****************************************** > > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
