Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS Multiarea on 12.2 SR
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Mark Tinka wrote: I will say one thing, though. Dividing the IS-IS domain into L1 and L2 levels accordingly is meant to help you scale. That might make sense if you have all routes in there, but when just carrying loopbacks it kind of stops making sense (at least to me). -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS Multiarea on 12.2 SR
On Saturday 07 November 2009 04:08:00 am Justin Shore wrote: I was going to through up a red flag about trying to run IS-IS on a 3750 because the last time I looked fixed-config non-ME Cat switches didn't support IS-IS. However I checked the FN just to be sure since it's been a long while since I looked and sure enough they added IS-IS to the 3750s with 12.2(50)SE. We have IS-IS running on 3560G's and 3750's for L1-only, IOS 12.2(52)SE. All our Ethernet switches run pure Layer 2 switching, so we're only using IS-IS to provide access to the device's Loopback address, for management. It works. Cheers, Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS Multiarea on 12.2 SR
On Friday 06 November 2009 04:09:58 pm Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: This is probably the biggest problem, the few people doing L1-L2 separation are those into academia/theoretics (passing a test/exam), when you go into the real world it's no longer in major use. I've never bothered to learn about ISIS L1, never needed to, see no use for it in real life. L2-only is the way to go. I'd also recommend against it from a sw standpoint. Sure, the sw supports it, but it hasn't been exposed to real life as much as L2 only because of above reasons. Well, we switched from OSPF to IS-IS in 2008, and we're running: * L1-only for all routers/switches in a PoP. * L1/L2 on all core routers. * L2-only for all PoP-to-PoP core links. The above has been stable, runs very well - helps us manage a multi-Gbps transport network :-). I will say one thing, though. Dividing the IS-IS domain into L1 and L2 levels accordingly is meant to help you scale. However, in this case, we trade scaling for optimality (even with an L1 and L2 network) by performing Route Leaking on all core routers. So if you think about it, it sort of moots the point, and perhaps makes an L2-only network an obvious choice. However, we still went ahead to deploy a multi-level IS-IS backbone, because there could be some day where we only need L1 routes in a specific PoP (which, to be honest, I can't see now - but as with anything else in network operations, better to be prepared). Cheers, Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS Multiarea on 12.2 SR
On Sunday 08 November 2009 04:29:23 pm Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: That might make sense if you have all routes in there, but when just carrying loopbacks it kind of stops making sense (at least to me). Well, a route is a route. The difference between philosophies is just the volume. I get your point, but who's to say I won't have 10,000 routers in production? Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS Multiarea on 12.2 SR
On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 07:17:24PM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote: On Sunday 08 November 2009 04:29:23 pm Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: That might make sense if you have all routes in there, but when just carrying loopbacks it kind of stops making sense (at least to me). Well, a route is a route. The difference between philosophies is just the volume. I get your point, but who's to say I won't have 10,000 routers in production? IMHO the rule of thumb for multiple areas in either ISIS or OSPF is if you have to ask whether you should use them or not, the answer is you shouldn't. Their sensible use is so vastly exagerated in books and lab tests that it isn't even funny. -- Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN
Any reason why you wouldn't go for fcoe on nexus 5k? :) On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Jason Gurtz jasongu...@npumail.com wrote: Not sure that you want to go with Nexus at this point. Its got some really nice features, however we keep running into code bugs . Not just stuff that's obscure and shows up in certain situations but real show- stoppers like being unable to form port-channels with HP blade servers. Interesting assessment and sorry to hear about the microsoftish experience. We're not intending to use blades (ESX Server 4 on a number of HP DL380G6 is likely) and would like to do cross-box etherchannels for redundancy. Jeff mentioned the 4948 of which the 10G version looks great since we're wanting to mirror the san off-site over fiber. There's still a chance that fiber channel will happen though it looks like that doesn't really make sense in this day and age. Here, vendors are pushing the MDS9124 box. Thanks for the responses so far. ~JasonG ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-...@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS Multiarea on 12.2 SR
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Mark Tinka wrote: Well, a route is a route. The difference between philosophies is just the volume. I get your point, but who's to say I won't have 10,000 routers in production? In order to detect loopbacks going away and using this to invalidate/remove next-hops quickly, you can't aggregate anyway. Sorry, I have yet to hear someone describe an ISP network (designed as per ISP essentials, carry loopbacks in IGP and everything else in BGP), where IGP aggregation makes sense. If you have 10k routers in your IGP, well, you most likely did something wrong earlier in the process. Also, with modern processorns and techniques such as partial tree recalculation in modern router OSes, I'm sure even 10k routers would be manageable in a single area. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ 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/
[c-nsp] Upgrade to XR-IOS 3.8.1
Dear All, Kindly i want to upgrade one of my routers to Cisco IOS XR 3.8.1 (Cisco 12410) my current IOS is 3.6.1 any advice how can i make this upgrade gracefully without any downtime ? and what are the steps to migrate to version 3.8.1 Thanks Regards Jason ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN
I realize this is cisco-nsp, but does anyone have any opinions on the Force 10 S-series for top-of-rack? Especially for iSCSI SAN. I've long been frustrated with Cisco's lack of a cost-effective 48 ports of gigE with a 10ge uplink switch. I don't really *need* a $12,000 layer 3 switch (or two) at the top of every rack in my data center! On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Andrew White adwh...@inchix.net wrote: Any reason why you wouldn't go for fcoe on nexus 5k? :) On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Jason Gurtz jasongu...@npumail.com wrote: Not sure that you want to go with Nexus at this point. Its got some really nice features, however we keep running into code bugs . Not just stuff that's obscure and shows up in certain situations but real show- stoppers like being unable to form port-channels with HP blade servers. Interesting assessment and sorry to hear about the microsoftish experience. We're not intending to use blades (ESX Server 4 on a number of HP DL380G6 is likely) and would like to do cross-box etherchannels for redundancy. Jeff mentioned the 4948 of which the 10G version looks great since we're wanting to mirror the san off-site over fiber. There's still a chance that fiber channel will happen though it looks like that doesn't really make sense in this day and age. Here, vendors are pushing the MDS9124 box. Thanks for the responses so far. ~JasonG ___ 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/ ___ 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/ -- Brian C Landers http://www.packetslave.com/ CCIE #23115 ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrade to XR-IOS 3.8.1
There will be downtime if you go directly with these versions. Check with your SE or TAC. IIRC, they should have a list of versions to go through to do a nice graceful (albeit, with some minor disruptions) upgrade. -- William McCall, CCIE #25044 On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Jason Alex amr.c...@gmail.com wrote: Dear All, Kindly i want to upgrade one of my routers to Cisco IOS XR 3.8.1 (Cisco 12410) my current IOS is 3.6.1 any advice how can i make this upgrade gracefully without any downtime ? and what are the steps to migrate to version 3.8.1 Thanks Regards Jason ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-...@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrade to XR-IOS 3.8.1
William, can you give an example of two XR versions that you can migrate between without reloading the whole box? I would like to try it in the lab in order to see how it is done. Thanks, Eduard On Nov 8, 2009 8:41 PM, William McCall william.mcc...@gmail.com wrote: There will be downtime if you go directly with these versions. Check with your SE or TAC. IIRC, they should have a list of versions to go through to do a nice graceful (albeit, with some minor disruptions) upgrade. -- William McCall, CCIE #25044 On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Jason Alex amr.c...@gmail.com wrote: Dear All, Ki... ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] unknown ethertype 0x200e
On 07/11/2009 21:13, Kevin Loch wrote: Does anyone know what this might be, from a routed interface on SRD3: 15:00:18.774808 00:02:fc:c1:0d:b2 00:00:00:00:02:02, ethertype Unknown (0x200e), length 78: 0x: 0001 0203 0405 0607 0809 0a0b 0c0d 0e0f 0x0010: 1011 1213 1415 1617 1819 1a1b 1c1d 1e1f 0x0020: 2021 2223 2425 2627 2829 2a2b 2c2d 2e2f .!#$%'()*+,-./ 0x0030: 3031 3233 3435 3637 3839 3a3b 3c3d 3e3f 0123456789:;=? I'd like to know what knob to use to turn it off. Google didn't turn up anything helpful. Looks like junk traffic to me. Might be worth opening up a TAC case: the payload looks peculiar and as you note, the ethertype is unknown. The destination mac address also looks odd. Nick ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrade to XR-IOS 3.8.1
There isn't a version that you can do that. Aaron On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 16:01, Eduard Gheorghiu edigheorg...@gmail.comwrote: William, can you give an example of two XR versions that you can migrate between without reloading the whole box? I would like to try it in the lab in order to see how it is done. Thanks, Eduard On Nov 8, 2009 8:41 PM, William McCall william.mcc...@gmail.com wrote: There will be downtime if you go directly with these versions. Check with your SE or TAC. IIRC, they should have a list of versions to go through to do a nice graceful (albeit, with some minor disruptions) upgrade. -- William McCall, CCIE #25044 On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Jason Alex amr.c...@gmail.com wrote: Dear All, Ki... ___ 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/ ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrade to XR-IOS 3.8.1
*shrug* I recalled incorrectly. I was under the impression that some of the minor releases were capable of in-service upgrade. However, it looks like it just applies to SMUs. And even then, the SMUs might take out the box. On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Aaron dudep...@gmail.com wrote: There isn't a version that you can do that. Aaron On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 16:01, Eduard Gheorghiu edigheorg...@gmail.com wrote: William, can you give an example of two XR versions that you can migrate between without reloading the whole box? I would like to try it in the lab in order to see how it is done. Thanks, Eduard On Nov 8, 2009 8:41 PM, William McCall william.mcc...@gmail.com wrote: There will be downtime if you go directly with these versions. Check with your SE or TAC. IIRC, they should have a list of versions to go through to do a nice graceful (albeit, with some minor disruptions) upgrade. -- William McCall, CCIE #25044 On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Jason Alex amr.c...@gmail.com wrote: Dear All, Ki... ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-...@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ -- William McCall, CCIE #25044 ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrade to XR-IOS 3.8.1
Yeah. ISSU isn't were it should be. Some SMU's require a reload depending on what componets are touched. On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:55, William McCall william.mcc...@gmail.comwrote: *shrug* I recalled incorrectly. I was under the impression that some of the minor releases were capable of in-service upgrade. However, it looks like it just applies to SMUs. And even then, the SMUs might take out the box. On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Aaron dudep...@gmail.com wrote: There isn't a version that you can do that. Aaron On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 16:01, Eduard Gheorghiu edigheorg...@gmail.com wrote: William, can you give an example of two XR versions that you can migrate between without reloading the whole box? I would like to try it in the lab in order to see how it is done. Thanks, Eduard On Nov 8, 2009 8:41 PM, William McCall william.mcc...@gmail.com wrote: There will be downtime if you go directly with these versions. Check with your SE or TAC. IIRC, they should have a list of versions to go through to do a nice graceful (albeit, with some minor disruptions) upgrade. -- William McCall, CCIE #25044 On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Jason Alex amr.c...@gmail.com wrote: Dear All, Ki... ___ 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/ -- William McCall, CCIE #25044 ___ 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/
[c-nsp] Troubelshooting Output Drops on 7301
Hi All, We're seeing some output drops occur on one of our interstate links. Just wondering how I can track what's causing it and/or whether it's normal behaviour for the output queue to fill up every now and then because of an increase in bursty traffic at the time. Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 11624 (Counters were cleared 17 minutes ago.) I've read Cisco's Troubleshooting Input Queue Drops and Output Queue Drops but it doesn't seem to have any information relating to my situation. Also searched for help on the list but nothing much to go on. Cisco IOS Software, 7301 Software (C7301-JS-M), Version 12.2(31)SB13, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) Cisco 7301 (NPE) processor (revision A) with 229376K/32768K bytes of memory. interface GigabitEthernet0/2 description Link from XXX to YYY mtu 9000 bandwidth 15 ip address 203.17.96.X 255.255.255.252 load-interval 30 media-type gbic speed auto duplex auto negotiation auto mpls ip routersh int gig 0/2 GigabitEthernet0/2 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is BCM1250 Internal MAC, address is 000b.60a5.ac19 (bia 000b.60a5.ac19) Description: Link from XXX to YYY Internet address is 203.17.96.X/30 MTU 9000 bytes, BW 15 Kbit, DLY 10 usec, reliability 255/255, txload 221/255, rxload 153/255 Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set Keepalive set (10 sec) Full Duplex, 1000Mbps, 1000BaseLX, Auto-negotiation, media type is LX output flow-control is XON, input flow-control is XON ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00 Last input 00:00:00, output 00:00:00, output hang never Last clearing of show interface counters 00:17:33 Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 11624 Queueing strategy: fifo Output queue: 0/40 (size/max) 30 second input rate 90511000 bits/sec, 17280 packets/sec 30 second output rate 130521000 bits/sec, 21551 packets/sec 18784789 packets input, 3852868380 bytes, 0 no buffer Received 1244 broadcasts (0 IP multicasts) 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored 0 watchdog, 66127 multicast, 0 pause input 22942732 packets output, 4128502155 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier, 0 PAUSE output 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out router#sh proc memory Processor Pool Total: 174234996 Used: 64120552 Free: 11011 I/O Pool Total: 33554432 Used:3729248 Free: 29825184 router#sh processes cpu sorted CPU utilization for five seconds: 20%/18%; one minute: 19%; five minutes: 19% Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Andy This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the organisation. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The organisation accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS Multiarea on 12.2 SR
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 02:32:11PM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote: On Sunday 08 November 2009 07:33:55 pm Richard A Steenbergen wrote: IMHO the rule of thumb for multiple areas in either ISIS or OSPF is if you have to ask whether you should use them or not, the answer is you shouldn't. Their sensible use is so vastly exagerated in books and lab tests that it isn't even funny. Speaking on my/our own behalf, there wouldn't be a doubt in our minds whether we needed the hierarchy or not. In our case, coming from OSPF where Areas were in vast use (different for each PoP, and we had quite a few), it made sense, at the time, to maintain a similar hierarchy in IS- IS, especially since what we wanted the most out of the migration was its stretchy property. However, like I mentioned in an earlier post, it quickly dawned on us that since Route Leaking essentially adds all L1 routes from other PoP's into the L1 database in other PoP's, and you turn off the ATT bit to gain optimality, the point of running both L1 and L2 for scaling reasons quickly becomes moot. I'm not questioning your decision, I'm just stating it for the archives and for everyone else who has to make this same decision at some point in the future: If you have to ask, just don't do it. I see way too many people trying to deploy areas with 10 router networks because they read somewhere that it was what they were supposed to do to scale, or because people saw it on an exam somewhere. -- Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS Multiarea on 12.2 SR
On Sunday 08 November 2009 07:33:55 pm Richard A Steenbergen wrote: IMHO the rule of thumb for multiple areas in either ISIS or OSPF is if you have to ask whether you should use them or not, the answer is you shouldn't. Their sensible use is so vastly exagerated in books and lab tests that it isn't even funny. Speaking on my/our own behalf, there wouldn't be a doubt in our minds whether we needed the hierarchy or not. In our case, coming from OSPF where Areas were in vast use (different for each PoP, and we had quite a few), it made sense, at the time, to maintain a similar hierarchy in IS- IS, especially since what we wanted the most out of the migration was its stretchy property. However, like I mentioned in an earlier post, it quickly dawned on us that since Route Leaking essentially adds all L1 routes from other PoP's into the L1 database in other PoP's, and you turn off the ATT bit to gain optimality, the point of running both L1 and L2 for scaling reasons quickly becomes moot. However, having already gone down that path, in actual practice - operationally - it makes very little difference (to us) and doesn't add any undue complexity or burden. Only our core routers are L1/L2 capable, and those are beasts that forward only on MPLS labels. Everything else, i.e., all devices within each PoP (edge, peering, upstream, route reflectors, RTBH routers, aggregation switches, e.t.c.), speaks L1-only. Cheers, Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN
Did you look at the c2350 also? http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10116/index.html Brian Landers wrote: I realize this is cisco-nsp, but does anyone have any opinions on the Force 10 S-series for top-of-rack? Especially for iSCSI SAN. I've long been frustrated with Cisco's lack of a cost-effective 48 ports of gigE with a 10ge uplink switch. I don't really *need* a $12,000 layer 3 switch (or two) at the top of every rack in my data center! On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Andrew White adwh...@inchix.net wrote: Any reason why you wouldn't go for fcoe on nexus 5k? :) On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Jason Gurtz jasongu...@npumail.com wrote: Not sure that you want to go with Nexus at this point. Its got some really nice features, however we keep running into code bugs . Not just stuff that's obscure and shows up in certain situations but real show- stoppers like being unable to form port-channels with HP blade servers. Interesting assessment and sorry to hear about the microsoftish experience. We're not intending to use blades (ESX Server 4 on a number of HP DL380G6 is likely) and would like to do cross-box etherchannels for redundancy. Jeff mentioned the 4948 of which the 10G version looks great since we're wanting to mirror the san off-site over fiber. There's still a chance that fiber channel will happen though it looks like that doesn't really make sense in this day and age. Here, vendors are pushing the MDS9124 box. Thanks for the responses so far. ~JasonG ___ 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/ ___ 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/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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/
