Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 800 stops forwarding layer 3 via switchport
On Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at K:13:13 -0600, Jesse Alexander wrote: I have seen this issue happen with a customer 800 series, and I think there were just too many IP's for it to handle. If I remember correctly, they were using an 871. In my case, we think it couldn't handle a /22 (I think it was a /22, it was a couple of years ago). Each site of which there a large number(a chain of hotels) each has a /27, we are currently seeing the issue on 10-15 sites randomly. I'm doubtful that the kit is unable to handle the load. The customer would be fine for a period of time (a few hours or less), then would not be able to reach the world until they rebooted it. Because we didn't manage the 800, we had no visibility to it, so I cannot tell you the specific reason. Because the issue went away after he customer upgraded their hardware, we can only assume that the 800 was insufficient for their needs. Our customer wont consider swaping kit out, your experiance sounds more advanced than ours we are only seeing the issue sporadicly. -Jesse -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of n00d...@nix-jutsu.net Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:43 AM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Cc: netwo...@timico.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 800 stops forwarding layer 3 via switchport Hello all, We have a strange issue between PIX 501's running 6.3(5) and our 800 series routers, we are using verious 800s(857/877) with a spread of IOS versions. The problem manifests itself as a drop of connectivity between the two devices, that being we lose layer 3 forwarding out of the switch-port module on the 800. We are of the opinion we have ethernet connectivity between devices as the mac-address table is being populated after being cleared, and linkstate show up/up but we cannot ping, nor can the device ARP for the PIX. Static ARP entrys also no not fix the issue, the only way we have found so far to fix the problem is to reboot the 800. Has anyone experienced this kind of problem before? Regards -- _ Chris Nicholls ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Timico Network Operations - against HTML, vCards and X ch...@timico.net - proprietary attachments in e-mail / \ ___ 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/ ---end quoted text--- -- _ Chris Nicholls ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Timico Network Operations - against HTML, vCards and X ch...@timico.net - proprietary attachments in e-mail / \ ___ 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] Cisco 800 stops forwarding layer 3 via switchport
On Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at K:04:55 +, Paul Cosgrove wrote: Not personally, but I have heard of similar issues which affect old versions of the PIX software. Does disabling/enabling or disconnecting/reconnecting the interface also resolve the issue? Sadly not that I'm aware of, the customer manages the PIXs involed which are really only doing NAT from the looks of the config they have provided. On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:42 PM, [1]n00d...@nix-jutsu.net wrote: Hello all, We have a strange issue between PIX 501's running 6.3and our 800 series routers, we are using verious 800s(857/877) with a spread of IOS versions. The problem manifests itself as a drop of connectivity between the two devices, that being we lose layer 3 forwarding out of the switch-port module on the 800. We are of the opinion we have ethernet connectivity between devices as the mac-address table is being populated after being cleared, and linkstate show up/up but we cannot ping, nor can the device ARP for the PIX. Static ARP entrys also no not fix the issue, the only way we have found so far to fix the problem is to reboot the 800. Has anyone experienced this kind of problem before? Regards -- _ Chris Nicholls ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Timico Network Operations - against HTML, vCards and X [2]ch...@timico.net - proprietary attachments in e-mail / \ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list [3]cisco-...@puck.nether.net [4]https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at [5]http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ References 1. mailto:n00d...@nix-jutsu.net 2. mailto:ch...@timico.net 3. mailto:cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net 4. https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp 5. http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ---end quoted text--- -- _ Chris Nicholls ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Timico Network Operations - against HTML, vCards and X ch...@timico.net - proprietary attachments in e-mail / \ ___ 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] (multi chass)i mc lag feature 7600
Hi, Has anyone any information about when the 7600 will support mc-lag? //Niklas ___ 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] (multi chass)i mc lag feature 7600
ES cards under SRE are supposed to support it. -- Tassos niklas rehnberg wrote on 12/11/2009 14:27: Hi, Has anyone any information about when the 7600 will support mc-lag? //Niklas ___ 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/
[c-nsp] Fiber
I need to know your opinion about fiber to desk i.e. pros and cons.. Thanks in advance. ___ 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] Fiber
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, madunix wrote: I need to know your opinion about fiber to desk i.e. pros and cons.. Fiber is much more sensitive to dust, bending and other kind of things that might happen day-to-day with people who don't really know or care about data communication. It's also more expensive generally (everything involved, NICs, switches and cables is more expensive). Why would you want to do it? I don't really see any pros what so ever to do it. -- 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] Fiber
madunix wrote: I need to know your opinion about fiber to desk i.e. pros and cons.. Thanks in advance. ___ 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/ Well, it does rather depend on your requirements. My opinion is that it's good: where you're not allowed copper, like oil refineries where copper cable won't work due to massive interference where you must have runs to desktops that are over 90m (tho I've some long runs on cat6 that work at 100M, just keep them below 200m, and use quality cable) Downsides are obviously: cost of adapters for PCs cost of fibre switches single-technology (you don't get 10/100/1000 fibre standards, so you have to do all one-standard) it's more sensitive to being bashed, stood on, etc Back in the day, when they thought copper was dead, Brand-Rex developed a shotgun copper+blown-fibre tube called BloTwist. (http://www.ezziengineering.com/pdf/cables/BloliteBro.pdf) . Of all the places our local Brand-Rex guy knows they fitted it, not one has used the fibre capability to date. What actually is your requirement? -- ian Ian McDonald, ITS, University of St Andrews The University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland: SC013532 ___ 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] WDM Splitter
Guys, Has anyone used one of these WDM splitter cables from cisco (WDM-1300-1550-S)? https://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/modules/ps5455/ps6575/product_data_sheet0900aecd8029d01b_ps708_Products_Data_Sheet.html If I'm reading the data sheet correctly, since it splits off the 1300 and 1550 wavelengths you *should* be able to get 2x10-GE out of a single pair with an LR and ER optic at either end. Thanks, Steve ___ 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] Fiber
On 12/11/2009 13:24, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: Why would you want to do it? I don't really see any pros what so ever to do it. it's useful if you want 10G to the desk. Otherwise, it's too fragile and sensitive for the average office environment. 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] Fiber
where you're not allowed copper, like oil refineries where copper cable won't work due to massive interference where you must have runs to desktops that are over 90m (tho I've some long runs on cat6 that work at 100M, just keep them below 200m, and use quality cable) Now that 10G over copper Cat6a (802.3an 10GBASE-T) has been finalized there aren't any good reason to go with fiber except for physical requirements like Ian stated. Also Desktop fiber aggregation is much more expensive in terms of line cards, diversity of switch choices, lack of desktop NICs. Usually I hear FTTD being done to future proof the wiring. Most of the times the fiber never ends up being used. Cat6a is backwards compatible with 5e, so if you are doing a new wiring plant, that's enough future proof for the next reasonable term. Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577 http://www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139 ___ 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] L2TP Configuration Debugging
Hello, I am attempting to help a customer debug an interconnect issue on his L2TP configuration. Unfortunately, this particular customer is not very Cisco savvy, and I am not very L2TP on Cisco savvy, so I would like to recruit someone for an hour (paid) to assist in debugging this tunnel configuration. Specifically, we are attempting to get DSL PPPoE sessions to establish the tunnel to a remote router for authentication / transport. Please let me know if you are interested in assisting, and what your hourly rate is. Thanks! ___ 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] SP QoS Service Class
I'm trying to plan for a QoS implementation for an Internet Access provider. I just finished reading RFC 4594 and it recommends VoIP signalling traffic be marked CS5. Every other reference I have seen always has it at AF31 or CS3. Is anyone else using the RFC recommendation? Would any SP be willing to share a general configuration for service classes they have defined. Sorry for the duplicate, I sent from the wrong email address before. ___ 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] Fiber
am just trying to take advantage of using light technologies in LAN for our new building, due to long distance between the offices over 90m, i know fiber is fast expensive and copper gigabit still far cheaper, and fiber to desktop isn't required for a majority of applications. Thanks On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Matthew Huff mh...@ox.com wrote: where you're not allowed copper, like oil refineries where copper cable won't work due to massive interference where you must have runs to desktops that are over 90m (tho I've some long runs on cat6 that work at 100M, just keep them below 200m, and use quality cable) Now that 10G over copper Cat6a (802.3an 10GBASE-T) has been finalized there aren't any good reason to go with fiber except for physical requirements like Ian stated. Also Desktop fiber aggregation is much more expensive in terms of line cards, diversity of switch choices, lack of desktop NICs. Usually I hear FTTD being done to future proof the wiring. Most of the times the fiber never ends up being used. Cat6a is backwards compatible with 5e, so if you are doing a new wiring plant, that's enough future proof for the next reasonable term. Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577 http://www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139 ___ 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] L2TP Configuration Debugging
Gregory, Please drop me a line with the configuration of the router acting as PPPoE client and the router acting as the LNS. Also, please detail what is in the RADIUS profile (if a AAA server is being used). No promises but I'll check it over and offer up some suggestions if I have any. Best regards, Charlie G Charlie Greenaway - CCIE#11226 (Security/RS) Solutions Architect | BT iNet | Tel: +44 (0)1993 885897 Email: charlie.greena...@btinet.bt.com | Web: www.btinet.bt.com -- Hello, I am attempting to help a customer debug an interconnect issue on his L2TP configuration. Unfortunately, this particular customer is not very Cisco savvy, and I am not very L2TP on Cisco savvy, so I would like to recruit someone for an hour (paid) to assist in debugging this tunnel configuration. Specifically, we are attempting to get DSL PPPoE sessions to establish the tunnel to a remote router for authentication / transport. Please let me know if you are interested in assisting, and what your hourly rate is. Thanks! This e-mail contains BT iNet information, which may be privileged or confidential. Its meant only for use by the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying, distributing or using this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please let me know immediately on the e-mail address above. Thank you. We monitor our e-mail system, and may record your e-mails. BT iNet is a trading name of BT Convergent Solutions LimitedRegistered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJRegistered in England no: 3238603 ___ 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] Fiber
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 madunix wrote: I need to know your opinion about fiber to desk i.e. pros and cons.. Thanks in advance. ___ 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/ We have an extensive fiber to the desk network. The pros are that it allowed us to centralize equipment much farther away from the clients than the 100m distance limitation of twisted pair. This allowed for better port utilization, better environmentals (power and cooling in one place rather than lots of closets) The current plant we're on has supported us from 10BaseFL, 100BaseFX, ATM155, and will continue to support us through 1000BaseX (though we might run into some distance limitations on some of our stations). So, the plant has last much longer than a copper plant would have. Cons: The electronics are more expensive: fiber switchports will cost mor and you'll need media converters or fiber NICs, the fiber patch cords are more expensive. Connectors: There has been one copper connector for twisted pair ethernet, while we have several for fiber No speed negotiation: we do have some devices that are 10Base-T only or 100Base-T only, so that presents a challenge (different client equipment to allow for rate adaptation. New problems that are arising: No realistic PoE option: we have a growing demand for network powered devices (APs and phones). There are power injecting media converters, but they are more expensive. What specifically is leading you to FTTD? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkr8J7AACgkQQr/gMVyFYyRmFwCgiZ1XuiekECwHV8j/dIotw9e6 oJoAn19+LKKiZ8lfp0HpKZZabvDw7KEI =6iNY -END PGP 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/
Re: [c-nsp] Fiber
it's useful if you want 10G to the desk. Otherwise, it's too fragile and sensitive for the average office environment. Maybe plastic optical fibers are not so fragile/sensitive, but I haven't seen them in production John ___ 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] WDM Splitter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steve Shaw wrote: Guys, Has anyone used one of these WDM splitter cables from cisco (WDM-1300-1550-S)? https://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/modules/ps5455/ps6575/product_data_sheet0900aecd8029d01b_ps708_Products_Data_Sheet.html If I'm reading the data sheet correctly, since it splits off the 1300 and 1550 wavelengths you *should* be able to get 2x10-GE out of a single pair with an LR and ER optic at either end. Thanks, Steve ___ 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/ It sounds like your application is something along the lines of what is depicted in Figure 12. WDM Splitter Cable for Non-CWDM Applications? I haven't used that specific part to do a 1310/1550 10G network, but we have a similar part from Fiberdyne (a Dual Window Mux) to do a SONET (at 1310) overlay on a DWDM signal. We also have a 1000BaseLX overlay onto DWDM systems and have even done a video signal at 1310 using these parts. As long as you could run either optic over this cable without the combiner/splitter, you should be fine. It will introduce a bit of loss, so make sure you account for that. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkr8KYEACgkQQr/gMVyFYyRpVACeOPaqaiI5qcC+H1eJYoMNu0jC asAAn1XhR5ve8IaOxcGnoaCxodgvGZi5 =pJ78 -END PGP 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/
Re: [c-nsp] Fiber
On Thursday 12 November 2009 09:10:02 pm madunix wrote: I need to know your opinion about fiber to desk i.e. pros and cons.. I tend to agree with Matthew and the others that have commented on this. The issue of distance and bandwidth notwithstanding, we've experienced situations where delivering fibre to somebody's home or desk is considered more for marketing mileage than any technical reasons. However, that also tends to set you up for a potential PR disaster since customers tend to eat that up, and misunderstand it at the same time. Unless you're trying to solve a distance problem, and/or your customer requires anything more than 1Gbps (well, Cat-6a, as others have mentioned, has been standardized - but diffusion may take a while) then consider copper. Otherwise, the additional potential cost in maintaining it does not really justify passing over copper solutions, IMHO. Moreover, fibre deployments to the home or desk require CPE, which, in very many cases, speak copper on the other end. So what's really the point? Needless to say, laptops, routers, switches, set-top boxes, wi-fi AP's, PC's, Mac's, game consoles, Tv's, e.t.c., all ship with RJ-45 dual- or tri- rate copper ports as standard these days. So no need for CPE, no need for additional customer training, e.t.c. digress Again, distance and bandwidth notwithstanding, this, in my mind, tends to question the long-term sustainability of FTTH, either through PON (Passive Optical Networks) or Active Ethernet. Since FTTH is looked at as a potential replacement for regular ADSL (i.e., consumer broadband), how many users can eat up a 1Gbps connection, assuming their ISP let them? This is not considering bandwidth used by IPTv and such, as customers buy channels for IPTv services, not bandwidth to drive the channels (that's the service provider's problem). /digress 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] Fiber
I need to know your opinion about fiber to desk i.e. pros and cons.. If one needs fiber for distance, electrical isolation, limited space/cooling for access switches, etc., one may want to look at various FTTx technologies (xPON and friends) which can provide fiber to near the desk with a relatively low cost drop to copper (the ONT) at the desk. Note that FTTx is (mostly) a residential subscriber type of solution (more bandwidth *to* the desk than from it), and that may not meet the needs of servers or power users (that are really more like servers). As with all else, your particular situation will vary. A presentation by Sandia at the Internet2/ESCC Joint Techs meeting in Indiana in June of 2009 discussed their particular FTTx plans (and may provide some thoughts): http://www.internet2.edu/presentations/jt2009jul/20090720-brenkosh.pdf Gary ___ 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] Fiber
On Friday 13 November 2009 12:12:47 am madunix wrote: am just trying to take advantage of using light technologies in LAN for our new building, due to long distance between the offices over 90m, i know fiber is fast expensive and copper gigabit still far cheaper, and fiber to desktop isn't required for a majority of applications. If the cost of deploying a fibre-based LAN (in terms of fibre spools, optics, CPE/converters, NIC's, maintenance, e.t.c.) outweighs the cost of doing a FTTB (Basement) and feeding trunk fibre pairs up to strategically-positioned copper-based Ethernet switches where you're not having to worry about cable distance to users, then you have your answer. Else, you'd need to make the hard choices :-). And don't just look at capex. Consider opex too (both financial and otherwise). 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/
[c-nsp] Client-to-client wireless on 877W
Does anyone know offhand how to enable local wireless bridge (client to client communication) on the radio on a Cisco 877W? I swear I thought I saw it in the docs somewhere a year ago when I set this thing up, but for the life of me I can't find it now or I'm not searching for whatever Cisco likes to call this function. ~Seth ___ 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] SP QoS Service Class
Travis, This map has worked pretty well for us. The idea behind splitting out RTP from signaling is if signaling doesn't get through, the call will drop. I welcome constructive criticism. :) class-map match-any Core_Voice_Signaling match access-group name Core_Voice_Signaling class-map match-any Core_Voice_RTP match access-group name Core_Voice_RTP ! policy-map voice class Core_Voice_Signaling bandwidth percent 5 class Core_Voice_RTP priority percent 70 class class-default fair-queue random-detect dscp-based ! ip access-list extended Core_Voice_RTP remark DSCP 24 = TOS 3 permit udp any any dscp cs3 remark DSCP ef permit udp any any dscp ef ip access-list extended Core_Voice_Signaling remark MGCP Signaling permit udp any any eq 2727 permit udp any eq 2727 any permit udp any any eq 2427 permit udp any eq 2427 any remark Samsung Signaling permit udp any any eq 6000 permit udp any eq 6000 any permit tcp any any eq 6100 permit tcp any eq 6100 any remark Cisco Skinny Signaling permit udp any any eq 2000 permit udp any eq 2000 any permit tcp any any eq 2000 permit tcp any eq 2000 any remark Allworx Signaling permit udp any any eq 2088 permit udp any eq 2088 any permit tcp any any eq 8081 permit tcp any eq 8081 any remark ADIX Signaling permit tcp any any eq 5 permit tcp any eq 5 any remark SIP Signalling permit udp any any eq 5060 permit udp any eq 5060 any permit udp any any eq 5061 permit udp any eq 5061 any permit tcp any any eq 5060 permit tcp any eq 5060 any permit tcp any any eq 5061 permit tcp any eq 5061 any ! -Jason Travis Marlow wrote: I'm trying to plan for a QoS implementation for an Internet Access provider. I just finished reading RFC 4594 and it recommends VoIP signalling traffic be marked CS5. Every other reference I have seen always has it at AF31 or CS3. Is anyone else using the RFC recommendation? Would any SP be willing to share a general configuration for service classes they have defined. Sorry for the duplicate, I sent from the wrong email address before. ___ 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/
[c-nsp] C6K, SUP720, 12.2(33)SXI, CoPP, glean
Anyone know how glean traffic behaves on a Sup720 with CoPP configured? We have gradually locked down our CoPP config, to the point that our final class is a default deny for any unclassified traffic. Unfortunately this has the unwanted side-effect of dropping glean traffic, with the knock-on effect of some arp resolution problems. In our tests, it appears that configuring an explicit class-default works around this, but I can't find any documentation. So far TAC hasn't come up with anything either. On the Nexus, docs specifically state that glean traffic is directed to the default class. -- Tim: ___ 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] MAC address use on 7600
Hi group, Can someone explain why router 7600 uses the same MAC address for all VLAN interfaces and ES20 ports? Catalyst 3560 has different MAC address for each VLAN interface. Thanks, Rin ___ 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
It is on the price list. $5300.. I have on in production and one on order for a customer.. Nice switch... Jim -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:31 AM To: Brian Landers Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:05:34 -0500, you wrote: [Cat 2350G] Doesn't appear to be in the pricing tool yet, though? Every order goes on NPH and needs to go through the BU for approval. Pricing is 'known, but not public'. -A ___ 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/
[c-nsp] router boots into ROMMON
My 7600 boots ignores the boot statement and goes into ROMMON. From ROMMON I can boot with following command: rommon 2 * boot bootdisk:c7600s72033-ipservices-mz.122-33.SRD.bin* rommon 1 set PS1=rommon ! LOG_PREFIX_VERSION=1 CONFIG_FILE= SWITCH_NUMBER=0 SLOTCACHE=cards; CRASHINFO=crashinfo_FAILED CV= BOOT=bootdisk:c7600s72033-ipservices-mz.122-33.SRD.bin,1; ** config: boot-start-marker boot system flash sup-bootdisk:c7600s72033-ipservices-mz.122-33.SRD.bin boot-end-marker 7600#*sh boot* BOOT variable = sup-bootdisk:c7600s72033-ipservices-mz.122-33.SRD.bin,1; CONFIG_FILE variable = BOOTLDR variable = Configuration register is 0x2102 Any ideas what could be wrong ? Cheers, ketimun ___ 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] router boots into ROMMON
Config register looks fine. Most obvious thing would be that the bin file doesn't exist. What does dir sup-bootdisk:c7600s72033-ipservices-mz.122-33.SRD.bin return? Does the file exist? selamat pagi wrote: My 7600 boots ignores the boot statement and goes into ROMMON. From ROMMON I can boot with following command: rommon 2 * boot bootdisk:c7600s72033-ipservices-mz.122-33.SRD.bin* rommon 1 set PS1=rommon ! LOG_PREFIX_VERSION=1 CONFIG_FILE= SWITCH_NUMBER=0 SLOTCACHE=cards; CRASHINFO=crashinfo_FAILED CV= BOOT=bootdisk:c7600s72033-ipservices-mz.122-33.SRD.bin,1; ** config: boot-start-marker boot system flash sup-bootdisk:c7600s72033-ipservices-mz.122-33.SRD.bin boot-end-marker 7600#*sh boot* BOOT variable = sup-bootdisk:c7600s72033-ipservices-mz.122-33.SRD.bin,1; CONFIG_FILE variable = BOOTLDR variable = Configuration register is 0x2102 Any ideas what could be wrong ? Cheers, ketimun ___ 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] 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN
What version of IOS does it run ? Base version or lite version ? Wim Holemans Network Services University of Antwerp -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jim McBurnett Sent: vrijdag 13 november 2009 5:17 To: Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists; Brian Landers Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN It is on the price list. $5300.. I have on in production and one on order for a customer.. Nice switch... Jim -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:31 AM To: Brian Landers Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 3750G vs. Nexus for a SAN On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:05:34 -0500, you wrote: [Cat 2350G] Doesn't appear to be in the pricing tool yet, though? Every order goes on NPH and needs to go through the BU for approval. Pricing is 'known, but not public'. -A ___ 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/ ___ 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/
