Re: [c-nsp] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links
Hi, On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 06:12:50PM +0200, Benny Amorsen wrote: Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de writes: (Unfortunately, design goals for the 2960S/3750X were different than get this fixed, so the buffer size is the same) If you want to stick with Cisco, do they have any similar products with larger buffers? I.e 24 or 48 1000base-T and some SFP/SFP+ uplink ports? As far as I know, only the EOLed 2970. The 6500 series has different line cards with vastly different buffer space - some of them are quite amazing, other somewhat poor. But that's a completely different league, of course. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de pgpX5NPfd7evt.pgp Description: 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] Speed problem and router seems to sluggish
Hi, On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 09:14:58AM +0700, Rudy Setiawan wrote: I'm hoping to get in touch with the vendor on Monday and try to get a DFC3BXL sent over. True, I did not see anything in the log that said about tcam stuff. On our border1, it did show that since I was using a sup2 engine and receiving a full routing table + private peerings. the cpu on border1 was around 30% on the average. Jun 19 20:33:08.311 PDT: %MLSCEF-SP-7-FIB_EXCEPTION: FIB TCAM exception for IPv4 unicast, Some routes will be software switched. Use mls cef maximum-routes to modify FIB TCAM partition. Well, this is the message that you don't want to see on your Sup720 systems - it basically tells you that the TCAM overflowed and that you'll have problems now, until you reboot. The architecture of Sup720 and Sup2 are fundamentally different as to what happens when TCAM is full. On the Sup2, you'll just software- switch packets - so you have high CPU load, but if the CPU can keep up, packets will still flow. On the Sup720, these packets will also be subject to rate-limiting, so you'll also have packet loss for those prefixes that go to software switching. *And* high CPU, if the traffic levels are high enough. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de pgp3LYcgZMu6B.pgp Description: 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] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links
I remember having bad times in the far past with intel NIC's on RedHat 7 that used the e100 driver, back then we've just solved those problems by using only 3com NICs that worked natively fine with linux. I'd think nowadays those problems were over! I guess not... Anyway, this is getting too off-topic, since it has nothing to do with Cisco devices. Trying a different NIC, vanilla kernels or a different linux distro is definitely the way to go. Ziv -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of bas Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:59 PM To: Paul Cc: Gert Doering; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links Hi, On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Paul p...@gtcomm.net wrote: Yeah I tried that.. I really think it's a problem with the linux kernel and e1000e driver and possibly either limited to that or an incompatibility with cisco switch but I doubt that since i get such good speeds locally. We've had a lot of problems with this issue. transatlantic speeds were faster on FE than on GE. Local speeds were great. It is indeed a bug in the kernel driver. After an upgrade to latest vanilla the problems are gone. Im not sure if anyone has created a rpm for a fix. Bas ___ 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/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. ___ 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] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:12:50 +0200, you wrote: If you want to stick with Cisco, do they have any similar products with larger buffers? I.e 24 or 48 1000base-T and some SFP/SFP+ uplink ports? Look at Catalyst 4948E: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10947/ -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/
Re: [c-nsp] Recommend router for ATM OC-12
HI, Cisco ASR1000 supports OC-12(ATM)/STM-4 (ATM). ASR1002-F can carry single OC-12 ATM SPA. ASR1002 can carry up to 3x OC-12 ATM SPAs. ASR1004 can carry up to 8x OC-12 ATM SPAs ASR1006 can carry up to 12x OC-12 ATM SPAs. It's small boxes and reach On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Rich Davies rich.dav...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, Someone has asked me a question regarding what Cisco router platform can handle an ATM OC-12. I did some digging and it seems the 7200 platform (with NPE-G1/G2) is unable to handle this. If a 7600 (7603 actually) was used what type of SUP/RP is needed to do ATM OC-12? (will SUP2/SUP32 work or is RSP/SUP 720 needed)? Thanks for any input. -Rich ___ 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/ -- Best Regards, Mounir Mohamed, CCIE No.19573 (RS, SP) Senior Network Engineer, Core Team. NOOR Data Networks, SAE Mobile# +2-010-2345-956 http://mounirmohamed.wordpress.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mounirmohamed ___ 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] Speed problem and router seems to sluggish
On 28 Jun 2010, at 03:14, Rudy Setiawan r...@rudal.com wrote: I'm hoping to get in touch with the vendor on Monday and try to get a DFC3BXL sent over. Do you actually need DFCs on this box? A pfc3bxl will happily switch up to 16m pps before adding a dfc makes a difference. And if your traffic rates are such that you've only just noticed that software switching no longer works, it sounds unlikely that using dfcs will do anything at all for you - other than cost money. Unless you're shifting many millions of pps on this box, I'd just take out the dfcs completely. 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] MST Reserved VLANs on Nexus 5010
Gary, On 28/06/2010, at 1:04 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote: NX-OS definitely prevents you from mapping them to *any* instance. I'll open a TAC case with Cisco tomorrow and see if I get anywhere. CSCtc54335 covers this. its due to be sync'd to the next 4.2(x) maintenance release on N5K. cheers, lincoln. ___ 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] MACFLAP Message
Bill, In addition to Paul's comments: if the main reason for your current setup is redundancy (and not capacity), you can try using a different bonding mode on the server. If you use bonding mode 1 (active-backup), only one of the links is used for traffic. In bonding mode 1, there are two ways to determine which link is active: miimon and ARP monitoring. I generally prefer ARP monitoring since it's end-to-end, while miimon only monitors link state. So if the access switch holding the active bond member has a link failure to your core, miimon doesn't notice. With ARP monitoring, you can monitor specific targets (either the default gateway IP or one or more addresses of other Oracle servers). The bonding will fail over to the backup member if the configured target(s) aren't reachable over the active link. We're running mode 1 bonding for a similar setup, where each server does ARP monitoring to two remote servers. Works like a charm. We decided not to do ARP monitoring for the gateway IP, because that would impose an unnecessary load on the CPU of our routers. You might want to read up on Linux bonding options: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/networking/bonding . Regards, Jeroen van Ingen ICT Service Centre University of Twente, P.O.Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands Original Message From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Bill Blackford Sent: zondag 27 juni 2010 16:55 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] MACFLAP Message Had an issue the other day that may or may not be related to the following message. Jun 24 11:30:37.354: %SW_MATM-4-MACFLAP_NOTIF: Host 0015.1761.8140 in vlan 311 is flapping between port Po4 and port Po5 Jun 24 11:30:51.665: %SW_MATM-4-MACFLAP_NOTIF: Host 0015.176f.a6e4 in vlan 311 is flapping between port Po4 and port Po5 Jun 24 11:30:52.672: %SW_MATM-4-MACFLAP_NOTIF: Host 0015.1761.8140 in vlan 311 is flapping between port Po5 and port Po4 Jun 24 11:32:18.924: %SW_MATM-4-MACFLAP_NOTIF: Host 0015.176f.a742 in vlan 311 is flapping between port Po5 and port Po4 Jun 24 11:32:24.460: %SW_MATM-4-MACFLAP_NOTIF: Host 0015.176f.adae in vlan 311 is flapping between port Po5 and port Po4 Jun 24 11:34:12.237: %SW_MATM-4-MACFLAP_NOTIF: Host 0015.176f.a6e4 in vlan 311 is flapping between port Po4 and port Po5 Jun 24 11:34:12.900: %SW_MATM-4-MACFLAP_NOTIF: Host 0015.176f.adae in vlan 311 is flapping between port Po5 and port Po4 Jun 24 11:34:13.278: %SW_MATM-4-MACFLAP_NOTIF: Host 0015.176f.a742 in vlan 311 is flapping between port Po5 and port Po4 VLAN311 is an Oracle heartbeat L2 vlan that spans across the data center. This message was logged on the 3750 VC stack (core). Each node is connected to access switches that each connect into the core via LACP bundles. Each of these MAC's are part of a Linux BOND group on various hosts. IOW, each bond interface member connects to each of the (in this case) two access switches. The topology is loop free from the perspective of the network switches as the LACP bundles eliminate the need for spanning tree. Now, this may be more of a question for how Linux bonding works across multiple access switches but I need to start here. I'm not finding a lot of information about this message. Does anyone on the group have any insight? Thank you in advance, -b ___ 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] EIGRP RTO issue over 3750 stack (with workaround included)
Hi all, We are facing here a very strange issue. We have 4 routers connected to a 3750 stack doing pure L2 stuff. All 4 routers are talking EIGRP over a VRF-lite environment. Sometimes, suddenly, without reason -no strange logs, no strange traffic behaviour as far as we were checking- the EIGRP starts to failed, no adjacencies between some routers. During the diagnostic we discovered that sh ip eigrp vrf XXX neigh shows a RTO like 5000 for the node that is down. Strange also if you consider that any size of ping between nodes were ok, no packet loss, as well very very low latency as expected in our environment We were doing some diagnostic and there was no reason for that. The solution was very strange also. shut and not shut in the vlan inside the switch makes the sh ip eigrp vrf XXX neigh to show 200ms as RTO for all nodes, so the problem is in the stack. We also had some other problems with HSRP and we think it is related with the same issue. So, any comments? any advice? any experience with this problem too? ___ 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] Disabling PVST+ in mixed vendor network
By the way, the first time this happened it wasn't following a reload or crash of the Cat6k. If I remember correctly, it coincided with someone connecting a Cisco 3020 blade switch, which we expected to be the cause. I think that incident led to us blocking 01000c-cd wherever we can. Still, I don't understand why it happens and how we can completely avoid it. We don't use MST, so take this with a pinch of salt... During my reading, I seem to recall that Cisco devices perform some kind of PVST-MST integration at ports at the edge of an MST cloud: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/con figuration/guide/spantree.html#wp1098679 Since all our HP's connected to the Cisco's are running RSTP (and the Cisco's MST), I guess each Cisco port leading to a HP switch is considered a boundary port. Is this your issue? http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/con figuration/guide/stp_enha.html#wp1054786 Yes, that's what happens... so we could also enable PVST Simulation again, hoping that receiving a PVST+ BPDU doesn't result in a peer inconsistent state. But still, I'd prefer killing this protocol entirely. It's The problem is that if you've got non-Cisco switches downstream which are a) MST enabled but b) still pass PVST PDUs, then you're going to see PVST peer inconsistent on the port on the Cisco, not at the edge of the network. Right, that's what happens. And what I'm trying to achieve is that the Cisco Cat6k completely *ignores* these proprietary PVST+ frames... Maybe it's me, but I just don't understand why I can't just disable all PVST+ features. Other proprietary protocols such as DTP can also be turned off (at least at port level), so why not PVST+? But let's not go on a complete rant here... perhaps enabling PVST Simulation again will prevent the Cisco ports to go blocking; I'll test that in a service window. Thanks again for your comments and insights. Regards, Jeroen van Ingen ICT Service Centre University of Twente, P.O.Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands ___ 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] Speed problem and router seems to sluggish
On 06/28/2010 08:10 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: On 28 Jun 2010, at 03:14, Rudy Setiawanr...@rudal.com wrote: I'm hoping to get in touch with the vendor on Monday and try to get a DFC3BXL sent over. Do you actually need DFCs on this box? A pfc3bxl will happily switch up to 16m pps before adding a dfc makes a difference. And if your traffic rates are such that you've only just noticed that software switching no longer works, it sounds unlikely that using dfcs will do anything at all for you - other than cost money. Unless you're shifting many millions of pps on this box, I'd just take out the dfcs completely. I don't know what the OPs needs are, but for the archives it's worth emphasising that DFCs do more than just speed the box up. One example: many LAN cards have very different QoS queueing options with a CFC versus a DFC. In addition we've hit IOS bugs in the past which only show on CFC cards. ___ 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] Speed problem and router seems to sluggish
On 28/06/2010 10:26, Phil Mayers wrote: I don't know what the OPs needs are, but for the archives it's worth emphasising that DFCs do more than just speed the box up. One example: many LAN cards have very different QoS queueing options with a CFC versus a DFC. In addition we've hit IOS bugs in the past which only show on CFC cards. This is true. They affect netflow capacity too. 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/
[c-nsp] Multiple virtual-templates under one bba-group
Hi group I have a problem and need to know is it possible to define multiple virtual-templates under single bba-group and if yes , how BRAS selects between them ? based on what conditions ? thanks for your help --Ibrahim ___ 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] Multiple virtual-templates under one bba-group
Dear Ibrahim, I hope that you are doing fine. I believe only a single cloning source (Virtual-Template) can be specified under a single bba-group profile, however if you are interested to use different profiles for a group of PPPoE subscribers you can use the vlan-range feature and apply different profiles to different ranges. Anyway more clarification on the design requirements will aid in the feature selection. On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Ibrahim Abo Zaid ibrahim.aboz...@gmail.com wrote: Hi group I have a problem and need to know is it possible to define multiple virtual-templates under single bba-group and if yes , how BRAS selects between them ? based on what conditions ? thanks for your help --Ibrahim ___ 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/ -- Best Regards, Mounir Mohamed, CCIE No.19573 (RS, SP) Senior Network Engineer, Core Team. NOOR Data Networks, SAE Mobile# +2-010-2345-956 http://mounirmohamed.wordpress.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mounirmohamed ___ 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] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links
OK I'm jumping in on this thread late as I just got back from some vacation, don't know if this particluar observation has been discussed, but ... We've seen this problem a lot when moving up to new local connection speeds. The problem for us has been that unless the entire path can support the new speed (e.g., 1G) switches down the path that connect to slower speeds (e.g. 100M) will overflow and put your data transfer into TCP slow-start recovery. As soon as the sending NIC is 'downgraded' (e.g., back to 100 M) the overflows disappear, slow-start is avoided, and performance improves. Bitterly ironic. Joe From: Paul p...@gtcomm.net To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Date: 06/27/2010 03:08 AM Subject: [c-nsp] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links I'm not even sure this is the right forum but since we use mainly Cisco equipment I'll give this a shot. :) I have tried several centos based servers and compiled various kernels and the results have been extremely weird. 90% of the cases the remote hosts can download from a server at 1-5megabytes per second, and most of these are over the internet ranging from 30-200ms away. Local (1ms or less) is super fast 100MB/s for example. Ok that sounds normal since it's going over the internet, etc. But here's the )(!...@*! part.. If I set the port speed to 100 megabits full duplex on the switch and server , the clients that get 1-5MB/s now get 11MB/s which is approximately the limit of the 100mbit port. Totally stumped here, tried different nics, servers, even 4 different switches. Is a very interesting problem and I'm probing to see if anyone else has encountered it. So far the only OS i have tried is centos, but different versions and kernels and hardware. All the switches/routers are Cisco based, but I seriously doubt that has anything to do with this. :P -- GloboTech Communications Phone: 1-514-907-0050 x 215 Toll Free: 1-(888)-GTCOMM1 Fax: 1-(514)-907-0750 p...@gtcomm.net http://www.gtcomm.net ___ 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] MST Reserved VLANs on Nexus 5010
Any idea on when that might be? I can't even view the bug report. Dear valued Cisco Bug Toolkit customer, the bug ID CSCtc54335 you searched contains proprietary information that cannot be disclosed at this time; therefore, we are unable to display the bug details. Please note it is our policy to make all externally-facing bugs available in Bug Toolkit to best assist our customers. As a result, the system administrators have been automatically alerted to the problem. GG On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Lincoln Dale l...@cisco.com wrote: Gary, On 28/06/2010, at 1:04 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote: NX-OS definitely prevents you from mapping them to *any* instance. I'll open a TAC case with Cisco tomorrow and see if I get anywhere. CSCtc54335 covers this. its due to be sync'd to the next 4.2(x) maintenance release on N5K. cheers, lincoln. ___ 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] Simple VLAN Tag question
Hello folks, Please forgive the newbie question. I've looked online in various places but can't just seem to find a simple sample config. I've never really had to deal with VLANs on the Cisco IOS before. I have a situation where we need to plug a 2620 in to an Ethernet LAN and tag the traffic with 301. Does anyone have a sample config that shows the creation of the VLAN and how to tag the traffic? Thanks very much, -Nick Voth ___ 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] Simple VLAN Tag question
Nick Voth wrote: Hello folks, Please forgive the newbie question. I've looked online in various places but can't just seem to find a simple sample config. I've never really had to deal with VLANs on the Cisco IOS before. I have a situation where we need to plug a 2620 in to an Ethernet LAN and tag the traffic with 301. You want to create a subinterface and set the encapsulation to dot1q (assuming you are using 802.1q vlan tagging and not ISL, if so just omit the encapsulation line) ! int FastEthernet0/0 description Connected to LAN no ip address ! int FastEthernet0/0.301 encapsulation dot1q 301 ip address x.x.x.x y.y.y.y ! Hope this helps. David. Does anyone have a sample config that shows the creation of the VLAN and how to tag the traffic? Thanks very much, -Nick Voth ___ 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/ -- David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Group ___ 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] ASR1002-F lsmpi_io memory usage
Dear all, Is it normal that the show processes memory shows so little free memory for lsmpi_io? Processor Pool Total: 1821524196 Used: 156947532 Free: 1664576664 lsmpi_io Pool Total:6295088 Used:6294116 Free:972 Regards, Rens ___ 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] Simple VLAN Tag question
Thanks Tim. I knew it had to be simple. Yes, we have IP-Plus image or higher. Thanks again! -Nick From: Tim Jackson jackson@gmail.com Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:10:34 -0500 To: Nick Voth nv...@estreet.com Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Simple VLAN Tag question interface FastEthernet0/1 no shutdown ! interface FastEthernet0/1.301 encapsulation dot1q 301 ip address 1.2.3.4 255.255.255.0 ! IIRC, you may need IP-Plus or a desktop image (d-mz) to do dot1q on 2600.. (I could be wrong).. -- Tim On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Nick Voth nv...@estreet.com wrote: Hello folks, Please forgive the newbie question. I've looked online in various places but can't just seem to find a simple sample config. I've never really had to deal with VLANs on the Cisco IOS before. I have a situation where we need to plug a 2620 in to an Ethernet LAN and tag the traffic with 301. Does anyone have a sample config that shows the creation of the VLAN and how to tag the traffic? Thanks very much, -Nick Voth ___ 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] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WANlinks
This isn't exactly the problem I am seeing.. I actually set up a windows server and it shows the same result as the centos server which leads me to believe it's not a driver issue with centos. None of our connections are overflowing, the transfer doesn't even start out fast. It's going through all gigabit or higher ports the entire way. One particular transfer I get 1.3MB/s every time, consistently, and if i disable TSO/GSO i get 8-9MB/s average but during the transfer the rate jumps up and down a lot.(this is on centos using ethtool -K eth0 tso off gso off) Windows gets the 1.3MB/s but i haven't tried disabling tso/gso yet. If I set the port to 100mbits, both max it out no problem. Locally where latency is 1ms both come near maxing out the gigabit port (probably hard drive limitation) Is there any utility that will test this end to end ? I've used iperf to do loss/transfer tests. What kills me is that the servers i'm using to test with can download at 300-400mbits from the server on the other end that im using to test with but can only upload at 10mbits. One would think, that if a server on level3 for example in one location and another server on level3 in another location both on gigabit ports, should get a good rate both directions. And of course if i set it to 100m, it gets 100m and not 10m.. I'm still stumped by this issue. Wouldn't having a server on the other end at 1gbit and using a 100m port to upload with cause more packet drops than having gigabit on the uploading server? since it maxes out the 100m port Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote: Joe, this is exactly the phenomena I was referring to. It can be controlled with applying shaping on platforms that can support this kind of QOS policy (requires large buffers). Usually available on WAN routers, specific switches or requires specific modules on some other switches. Arie -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Joe Loiacono Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 17:11 To: Paul Cc: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WANlinks OK I'm jumping in on this thread late as I just got back from some vacation, don't know if this particluar observation has been discussed, but ... We've seen this problem a lot when moving up to new local connection speeds. The problem for us has been that unless the entire path can support the new speed (e.g., 1G) switches down the path that connect to slower speeds (e.g. 100M) will overflow and put your data transfer into TCP slow-start recovery. As soon as the sending NIC is 'downgraded' (e.g., back to 100 M) the overflows disappear, slow-start is avoided, and performance improves. Bitterly ironic. Joe From: Paul p...@gtcomm.net To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Date: 06/27/2010 03:08 AM Subject: [c-nsp] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links I'm not even sure this is the right forum but since we use mainly Cisco equipment I'll give this a shot. :) I have tried several centos based servers and compiled various kernels and the results have been extremely weird. 90% of the cases the remote hosts can download from a server at 1-5megabytes per second, and most of these are over the internet ranging from 30-200ms away. Local (1ms or less) is super fast 100MB/s for example. Ok that sounds normal since it's going over the internet, etc. But here's the )(!...@*! part.. If I set the port speed to 100 megabits full duplex on the switch and server , the clients that get 1-5MB/s now get 11MB/s which is approximately the limit of the 100mbit port. Totally stumped here, tried different nics, servers, even 4 different switches. Is a very interesting problem and I'm probing to see if anyone else has encountered it. So far the only OS i have tried is centos, but different versions and kernels and hardware. All the switches/routers are Cisco based, but I seriously doubt that has anything to do with this. :P -- GloboTech Communications Phone: 1-514-907-0050 x 215 Toll Free: 1-(888)-GTCOMM1 Fax: 1-(514)-907-0750 p...@gtcomm.net http://www.gtcomm.net ___ 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] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WANlinks
Paul, The bursts are sub-second, and you would not see them on the transfer rate over time or using 30-seconds average counters on the switches (you would see them with a sniffer...) I suggest you test this in a structured way, so that we know where the problem is coming from, and then we know which part of the solution to fix. In order to test, you should repeat the download test with 100M and 1G settings at each of the following locations: 1. Same access switch 2. On the 6500 before the WAN connection 3. From Level 3 (beyond the WAN connection) The locations above are for the client ; the server should remain at the same place. Each location should be tested twice: With the server set to 100M and to 1G. Another thing is to validate that the WAN link is capable of providing a full 1G rate. If you can run an iperf test over it at 1G (outgoing!) it would allow us to validate this part. Thanks Arie -Original Message- From: Paul [mailto:p...@gtcomm.net] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 18:58 To: Arie Vayner (avayner) Cc: Joe Loiacono; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WANlinks This isn't exactly the problem I am seeing.. I actually set up a windows server and it shows the same result as the centos server which leads me to believe it's not a driver issue with centos. None of our connections are overflowing, the transfer doesn't even start out fast. It's going through all gigabit or higher ports the entire way. One particular transfer I get 1.3MB/s every time, consistently, and if i disable TSO/GSO i get 8-9MB/s average but during the transfer the rate jumps up and down a lot.(this is on centos using ethtool -K eth0 tso off gso off) Windows gets the 1.3MB/s but i haven't tried disabling tso/gso yet. If I set the port to 100mbits, both max it out no problem. Locally where latency is 1ms both come near maxing out the gigabit port (probably hard drive limitation) Is there any utility that will test this end to end ? I've used iperf to do loss/transfer tests. What kills me is that the servers i'm using to test with can download at 300-400mbits from the server on the other end that im using to test with but can only upload at 10mbits. One would think, that if a server on level3 for example in one location and another server on level3 in another location both on gigabit ports, should get a good rate both directions. And of course if i set it to 100m, it gets 100m and not 10m.. I'm still stumped by this issue. Wouldn't having a server on the other end at 1gbit and using a 100m port to upload with cause more packet drops than having gigabit on the uploading server? since it maxes out the 100m port Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote: Joe, this is exactly the phenomena I was referring to. It can be controlled with applying shaping on platforms that can support this kind of QOS policy (requires large buffers). Usually available on WAN routers, specific switches or requires specific modules on some other switches. Arie -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Joe Loiacono Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 17:11 To: Paul Cc: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WANlinks OK I'm jumping in on this thread late as I just got back from some vacation, don't know if this particluar observation has been discussed, but ... We've seen this problem a lot when moving up to new local connection speeds. The problem for us has been that unless the entire path can support the new speed (e.g., 1G) switches down the path that connect to slower speeds (e.g. 100M) will overflow and put your data transfer into TCP slow-start recovery. As soon as the sending NIC is 'downgraded' (e.g., back to 100 M) the overflows disappear, slow-start is avoided, and performance improves. Bitterly ironic. Joe From: Paul p...@gtcomm.net To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Date: 06/27/2010 03:08 AM Subject: [c-nsp] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links I'm not even sure this is the right forum but since we use mainly Cisco equipment I'll give this a shot. :) I have tried several centos based servers and compiled various kernels and the results have been extremely weird. 90% of the cases the remote hosts can download from a server at 1-5megabytes per second, and most of these are over the internet ranging from 30-200ms away. Local (1ms or less) is super fast 100MB/s for example. Ok that sounds normal since it's going over the internet, etc. But here's the )(!...@*! part.. If I set the port speed to 100 megabits full duplex on the switch and server , the clients that get 1-5MB/s now get 11MB/s which is approximately the limit of the 100mbit port. Totally stumped here, tried different nics, servers, even 4
[c-nsp] IP issues with 3560
Hello All, I have not dealt with this before so any help/comments would be great and much appreciated... We have the following IP's that need to be able to ping each other through this box. I have a server sitting at 10.125.25.5/255.255.0.0 that connects to the rest of the network via a microwave link. It connects to the 10.125.19.x segment to upload data to an archiving server. I need to be able to ping 25.2 from 19.x and vice versa. Can you please give some assistance as to how I can accomplish this? So far I have only been able to get the 25.5 to ping the Vlan it is connected to, but not anything on the other side (19.x) even with IP Routing enabled. Currently, I have reset it to factory to start from scratch. Can anybody suggest what the problem could be? Thanks in advance!! Sophan ___ 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] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links
On 6/28/10, Joe Loiacono jloia...@csc.com wrote: OK I'm jumping in on this thread late as I just got back from some vacation, don't know if this particluar observation has been discussed, but ... We've seen this problem a lot when moving up to new local connection speeds. The problem for us has been that unless the entire path can support the new speed (e.g., 1G) switches down the path that connect to slower speeds (e.g. 100M) will overflow and put your data transfer into TCP slow-start recovery. As soon as the sending NIC is 'downgraded' (e.g., back to 100 M) the overflows disappear, slow-start is avoided, and performance improves. Bitterly ironic. Have you checked to see if selective acks are enabled on both sides of the connection[s]? Lee Joe From: Paul p...@gtcomm.net To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Date: 06/27/2010 03:08 AM Subject: [c-nsp] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links I'm not even sure this is the right forum but since we use mainly Cisco equipment I'll give this a shot. :) I have tried several centos based servers and compiled various kernels and the results have been extremely weird. 90% of the cases the remote hosts can download from a server at 1-5megabytes per second, and most of these are over the internet ranging from 30-200ms away. Local (1ms or less) is super fast 100MB/s for example. Ok that sounds normal since it's going over the internet, etc. But here's the )(!...@*! part.. If I set the port speed to 100 megabits full duplex on the switch and server , the clients that get 1-5MB/s now get 11MB/s which is approximately the limit of the 100mbit port. Totally stumped here, tried different nics, servers, even 4 different switches. Is a very interesting problem and I'm probing to see if anyone else has encountered it. So far the only OS i have tried is centos, but different versions and kernels and hardware. All the switches/routers are Cisco based, but I seriously doubt that has anything to do with this. :P -- GloboTech Communications Phone: 1-514-907-0050 x 215 Toll Free: 1-(888)-GTCOMM1 Fax: 1-(514)-907-0750 p...@gtcomm.net http://www.gtcomm.net ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] ipv6 static route with tracking
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Brandon Applegate wrote: :( Running 12.2(33) SRE on a 7600 specifically. I have some ipv4 routes nailed to Null with a track statement at the end. I don't have the option on the ipv6 static routes. Is this something that was overlooked in development, or is there some deep IOS code reason why this doesn't exist ? Answering my own post. Opened a TAC case on this and was told it's a roadmap item - but no ETA. :( ___ 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] ipv6 static route with tracking
Brandon, Even though this is not available natively in IOS, it should be possible to implement using a relatively simple EEM policy. Would be happy to help if interested. Tnx Arie -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Brandon Applegate Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 20:36 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ipv6 static route with tracking On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Brandon Applegate wrote: :( Running 12.2(33) SRE on a 7600 specifically. I have some ipv4 routes nailed to Null with a track statement at the end. I don't have the option on the ipv6 static routes. Is this something that was overlooked in development, or is there some deep IOS code reason why this doesn't exist ? Answering my own post. Opened a TAC case on this and was told it's a roadmap item - but no ETA. :( ___ 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] MPLS best practices question
On 6/23/10 7:41 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: On Wednesday 23 June 2010 08:31:03 pm Peter Rathlev wrote: We generally use the highest supported MTU (often 9216 bytes) on all internal links, in an effort to make an eventual transition easier later. We initially considered this, but when some platforms talk 9,216 bytes, others talk 9,198 bytes, others talk 9,000 bytes (I think we even saw one that talked 10,000 bytes, but I stepped far away from that box), standardizing at 9,000 bytes was sane for us. Cheers, Mark. That only works until aq high $$$ customer starts demanding 9000byte payloads for their IP in vrf or VPLS service... Seems like 9000 payload is a common target for *customer* jumbo use these days. Better to open all the switches wide (9216 payload for most core gear), and crank your IP and MPLS L3 stuff to the highest all the gear has in common. 9170ish for IP/MPLS seems to be workable across many platforms and link types. (Think customer is feeding double tag ether traffic into a EoMPLS tun and still demanding 9000 inner payload, and throw TE on top...) ___ 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] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, Gert Doering wrote: Oh, if it's 2960 or 3750 switches, you could run into the these switches have too tiny buffers to be useful problem. Is there a disused lavatory with a sign that says beware the leopard where cisco publishes the port buffer sizes for their small fixed configuration switches? I just did a number of searches and some poking around in data sheets and couldn't find this info. I'm still trying to figure out what to look at for IPv6 layer 3 ports to replace our fleet of 3550-48's. Maybe this won't be an issue because we really don't likely need gigabit on all ports...the 3560-48 may be good enough. -- 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 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] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links
On 28/06/2010 21:06, Jon Lewis wrote: I'm still trying to figure out what to look at for IPv6 layer 3 ports to replace our fleet of 3550-48's. Maybe this won't be an issue because we really don't likely need gigabit on all ports...the 3560-48 may be good enough. there's quite precise speculation on 3560 / 3750 buffer size here: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/cisco/nsp/109456 0.75MB of ingress buffering is dynamically divided into port buffers/queues, 2 of which are user-configurable. There's 2MB of egress buffering that provides 4 egress queues per physical port. From spending about 20 minutes looking at Google and the Cisco web site earlier today, I've decided that Cisco only mentions port buffer sizes when they're large enough to be worth mentioning. So, the 4900 has 16M shared port buffers, the me3800x has 256 megs, and so on. As you note, good luck looking for any mention of the 2960 / 3560 / 3750 range buffers. 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] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links
Have you checked to see if selective acks are enabled on both sides of the connection[s]? There are many good suggestions about tuning at http://fasterdata.es.net/ including buffer tuning, and even a section about e1000 nics in particular (regarding descriptor settings). ___ 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] Looping up far end smartjack
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Richey myli...@battleop.com wrote: I was hoping to avoid having to go to the colo late at night. We did finally hear from the customer. A breaker had tripped and they person on duty had no idea where the breakers were in the building. T1 duty was long ago in a galaxy far away for me...but aren't NIUs all line-powered? That is, wouldn't you want to loop the remote CSU/DSU anyway to confirm power? --Adam ___ 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] Looping up far end smartjack
On 6/28/10 4:00 PM, Adam Korab wrote: On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Richey myli...@battleop.com wrote: I was hoping to avoid having to go to the colo late at night. We did finally hear from the customer. A breaker had tripped and they person on duty had no idea where the breakers were in the building. T1 duty was long ago in a galaxy far away for me...but aren't NIUs all line-powered? That is, wouldn't you want to loop the remote CSU/DSU anyway to confirm power? Can't speak for all, but every T1 NIU I've seen has been powered from central office battery over the same pair(s) that deliver the T1 signal. So, ability to loop the NIU verifies that the telco span to the premise and the NIU itself are working. If the NIU loops up and the CSU doesn't, then the most likely issues are local utility power or inside wiring. If neither loops, it's most likely a trouble with the telco pair(s) between the CO and the NIU, aka backhoe fade. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV ___ 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] MST Reserved VLANs on Nexus 5010
On 29/06/2010, at 12:26 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote: Any idea on when that might be? I can't even view the bug report. the next NX-OS 4.2 maintenance release for the N5K is due to be posted on cisco.com in Q4 CY2010. Dear valued Cisco Bug Toolkit customer, the bug ID CSCtc54335 you searched contains proprietary information that cannot be disclosed at this time; therefore, we are unable to display the bug details. Please note it is our policy to make all externally-facing bugs available in Bug Toolkit to best assist our customers. As a result, the system administrators have been automatically alerted to the problem. indeed, the person that filed the bug marked it as internal only. i'll ask them to fix that. clearly it should be visible. cheers, lincoln. GG On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Lincoln Dale l...@cisco.com wrote: Gary, On 28/06/2010, at 1:04 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote: NX-OS definitely prevents you from mapping them to *any* instance. I'll open a TAC case with Cisco tomorrow and see if I get anywhere. CSCtc54335 covers this. its due to be sync'd to the next 4.2(x) maintenance release on N5K. cheers, lincoln. ___ 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] Looping up far end smartjack
Fiber fed ones aren't - but usually the copper loop fed ones are. -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp- boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Adam Korab Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 7:01 PM To: Richey Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Looping up far end smartjack On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Richey myli...@battleop.com wrote: I was hoping to avoid having to go to the colo late at night. We did finally hear from the customer. A breaker had tripped and they person on duty had no idea where the breakers were in the building. T1 duty was long ago in a galaxy far away for me...but aren't NIUs all line-powered? That is, wouldn't you want to loop the remote CSU/DSU anyway to confirm power? --Adam ___ 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] 3rd party optics fail on 3560?
Hi, I've been testing 3rd party optics on the various Cisco platforms we use. Most all platforms tested support 3rd party and can share results later if people are interested. However, the 3560 and 2960's fail. I have entered the following commands: service unsupported-transceiver no errdisable detect cause sfp-config-mismatch When I enter the optics, I get the following log message: *Dec 26 22:43:11.085: %GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in port Gi0/49 has bad crc Also, 'show int' says unknown optic: br1#sh int gi0/49 | i media Auto-duplex, Auto-speed, link type is auto, media type is unknown br1#sh int status | i Gi0/49 Gi0/49 notconnect 1auto auto unknown I get no link with these optics. I am testing copper, MMF and SMF. All of them behave like the above, but the 3560/2960 can read the idprom on the MMF/SMF but not the copper (show idprom interface gig0/49). Am I missing something? Why would these optics work on 6509, 4924, etc. but not the 3560/2960? Thanks for any insight /bs ___ 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] Looping up far end smartjack
Will the card respond to loop codes even if the router is in ronmon? Richey From: Adam Korab [mailto:adam.ko...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 7:01 PM To: Richey Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Looping up far end smartjack On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Richey myli...@battleop.com wrote: I was hoping to avoid having to go to the colo late at night. We did finally hear from the customer. A breaker had tripped and they person on duty had no idea where the breakers were in the building. T1 duty was long ago in a galaxy far away for me...but aren't NIUs all line-powered? That is, wouldn't you want to loop the remote CSU/DSU anyway to confirm power? --Adam ___ 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] Looping up far end smartjack
I just thought about that for a second.. If the T1 is down then the router will be down as well. In the event of a power outage I still can't tell if the power is off or the T1 is down.If I can hit the smart jack and not the router then I could assume it's a power outage. Richey From: Adam Korab [mailto:adam.ko...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 7:01 PM To: Richey Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Looping up far end smartjack On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Richey myli...@battleop.com wrote: I was hoping to avoid having to go to the colo late at night. We did finally hear from the customer. A breaker had tripped and they person on duty had no idea where the breakers were in the building. T1 duty was long ago in a galaxy far away for me...but aren't NIUs all line-powered? That is, wouldn't you want to loop the remote CSU/DSU anyway to confirm power? --Adam ___ 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] Looping up far end smartjack
On 6/28/10 7:37 PM, Richey wrote: Will the card respond to loop codes even if the router is in ronmon? The NIU will respond to loop codes regardless of the state of the router. The router doesn't even need to be connected. CSUs that are integrated into a WIC will probably not respond if the router is in rommon, although I haven't tried it. I believe that some microcode needs to load from IOS to make the WIC functional. Old-school external CSUs like the Adtran TSU will loop regardless of the state of the router. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV ___ 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] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links
Yeah I've checked everything possible that i can think of. No matter how i test locally, it's fast. As long as the latency is less than 10ms so far it's fast everywhere I've tested. I wish I could generate 25ms+ latency over a local link somehow and test that. Lee wrote: On 6/28/10, Joe Loiacono jloia...@csc.com wrote: OK I'm jumping in on this thread late as I just got back from some vacation, don't know if this particluar observation has been discussed, but ... We've seen this problem a lot when moving up to new local connection speeds. The problem for us has been that unless the entire path can support the new speed (e.g., 1G) switches down the path that connect to slower speeds (e.g. 100M) will overflow and put your data transfer into TCP slow-start recovery. As soon as the sending NIC is 'downgraded' (e.g., back to 100 M) the overflows disappear, slow-start is avoided, and performance improves. Bitterly ironic. Have you checked to see if selective acks are enabled on both sides of the connection[s]? Lee Joe From: Paul p...@gtcomm.net To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Date: 06/27/2010 03:08 AM Subject: [c-nsp] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links I'm not even sure this is the right forum but since we use mainly Cisco equipment I'll give this a shot. :) I have tried several centos based servers and compiled various kernels and the results have been extremely weird. 90% of the cases the remote hosts can download from a server at 1-5megabytes per second, and most of these are over the internet ranging from 30-200ms away. Local (1ms or less) is super fast 100MB/s for example. Ok that sounds normal since it's going over the internet, etc. But here's the )(!...@*! part.. If I set the port speed to 100 megabits full duplex on the switch and server , the clients that get 1-5MB/s now get 11MB/s which is approximately the limit of the 100mbit port. Totally stumped here, tried different nics, servers, even 4 different switches. Is a very interesting problem and I'm probing to see if anyone else has encountered it. So far the only OS i have tried is centos, but different versions and kernels and hardware. All the switches/routers are Cisco based, but I seriously doubt that has anything to do with this. :P -- GloboTech Communications Phone: 1-514-907-0050 x 215 Toll Free: 1-(888)-GTCOMM1 Fax: 1-(514)-907-0750 p...@gtcomm.net http://www.gtcomm.net ___ 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/ -- GloboTech Communications Phone: 1-514-907-0050 x 215 Toll Free: 1-(888)-GTCOMM1 Fax: 1-(514)-907-0750 p...@gtcomm.net http://www.gtcomm.net ___ 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] Centos upload speed slower on 1000m than 100m over WAN links
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Paul wrote: I wish I could generate 25ms+ latency over a local link somehow and test that. FreeBSD dummynet module will do this for you. http://www.technogumbo.com/tutorials/Network-Bandwidth-Latency-and-Delay-Simulation-Tutorial/Network-Bandwidth-Latency-and-Delay-Simulation-Tutorial.php I'm sure there are other guides. -- 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/
