Re: [c-nsp] REP support on 7600
On Saturday, September 11, 2010 04:21:55 pm Saku Ytti wrote: They have full blown MPLS support, LSR, LER, L2 and L3 MPLS VPN. But make sure everything you need is there, as it won't be feature complete at FCS. And all ports support MPLS; not like the fractured 3750ME. 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] REP support on 7600
On 2010-09-12 13:00, Mark Tinka wrote: On Saturday, September 11, 2010 04:21:55 pm Saku Ytti wrote: They have full blown MPLS support, LSR, LER, L2 and L3 MPLS VPN. But make sure everything you need is there, as it won't be feature complete at FCS. And all ports support MPLS; not like the fractured 3750ME. Right, because all ports on ME3600/3800 are connected to the same new silicon, driving the features/performance. As for the full blown MPLS support - ME3600 will not have VPLS, even after FCS. But there's EVC (like on the 7600 ES/ASR 9000), HQoS, and ton of new things that are coming down from higher-end platforms. -- Everything will be okay in the end. | Łukasz Bromirski If it's not okay, it's not the end. | http://lukasz.bromirski.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] REP support on 7600
I didn't see any mention of IPv6 on the current data sheet either. 2010/9/12 Łukasz Bromirski luk...@bromirski.net On 2010-09-12 13:00, Mark Tinka wrote: On Saturday, September 11, 2010 04:21:55 pm Saku Ytti wrote: They have full blown MPLS support, LSR, LER, L2 and L3 MPLS VPN. But make sure everything you need is there, as it won't be feature complete at FCS. And all ports support MPLS; not like the fractured 3750ME. Right, because all ports on ME3600/3800 are connected to the same new silicon, driving the features/performance. As for the full blown MPLS support - ME3600 will not have VPLS, even after FCS. But there's EVC (like on the 7600 ES/ASR 9000), HQoS, and ton of new things that are coming down from higher-end platforms. -- Everything will be okay in the end. | Łukasz Bromirski If it's not okay, it's not the end. | http://lukasz.bromirski.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] REP support on 7600
On 2010-09-12 13:27, Ben Steele wrote: I didn't see any mention of IPv6 on the current data sheet either. The IPv6 hardware support is there, along with the IPv6 extensions related to MPLS. The software at launch won't have the full support for it however. -- Everything will be okay in the end. | Łukasz Bromirski If it's not okay, it's not the end. | http://lukasz.bromirski.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] ASIC to switch port mapping
Hi, On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:18:19PM -0400, Vincent Aniello wrote: I am trying to solve a output drops on switch ports on which bandwidth utilization does not seem to exceed the port speed. Seems like the drops are due to the buffers filling up and dropping frames. I am under the impression that each ASIC has their own buffer and if the buffer fills on a particular ASIC all ports that share that ASIC will also drop frames. If I know the switch interfaces associated with each ASIC I can redistribute the connections on the switch to better balance the load. There's material in the c-nsp archives about the buffer size issue on the 2960, 3560 and related switches. Short answer: the buffers are so tiny that Cisco doesn't even document the size anywhere. So as soon as you have microburst traffic with more ingress ports than egress, you'll see drops (turn on QoS, cut the buffers into 4 even smaller queues, increase(!) drops). Cisco does not think that this is a problem, and I have been told that the new generation 2960S and 3560E have the same size buffers. 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 pgpIBzU93abPe.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/
[c-nsp] Cisco ASA 5510 Failover- Active/StandBy
Dear experts, I have two Cisco ASA 5510, Model ASA5510-AIP10-K9 and ASA5510-CSC10-K9, now the scenario is to do failover Active/Standby statefull. On the Model Comparison Sheet of CISCO ASA5500 Series, mentioned that For Failover on ASA 5510 required a Security Plus licenses and On Cisco ASA Command Configuration Guide there mentioned Base licenses work required Security Plus license for ASA 5505 only. So in my case is it required to have Security Plus license or not??? Another for failover, both device should be identical but i have two different model device- AIP and CSC. So for this if i remove the module AIP and CSC from the devices will it be working for failover on normal base firewall mode ASA.If there is any other method to fulfill this scenario then please suggest me. Please provide any such procedure that made my Cisco ASA 5510 be used on fail over mode. It will be great help from the experts like you. Thank You Regards, Fourprosit ___ 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] ASIC to switch port mapping
They are closet switches. If you need bigger buffers get a platform meant for heavier use such as the 4948. There are other vendors with nice offerings at a lower cost too so don't think Cisco is the only answer. Hi, On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:18:19PM -0400, Vincent Aniello wrote: I am trying to solve a output drops on switch ports on which bandwidth utilization does not seem to exceed the port speed. Seems like the drops are due to the buffers filling up and dropping frames. I am under the impression that each ASIC has their own buffer and if the buffer fills on a particular ASIC all ports that share that ASIC will also drop frames. If I know the switch interfaces associated with each ASIC I can redistribute the connections on the switch to better balance the load. There's material in the c-nsp archives about the buffer size issue on the 2960, 3560 and related switches. Short answer: the buffers are so tiny that Cisco doesn't even document the size anywhere. So as soon as you have microburst traffic with more ingress ports than egress, you'll see drops (turn on QoS, cut the buffers into 4 even smaller queues, increase(!) drops). Cisco does not think that this is a problem, and I have been told that the new generation 2960S and 3560E have the same size buffers. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ___ 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] Cisco ASA 5510 failover - Active/Standby
Dear experts, I have two Cisco ASA 5510, Model ASA5510-AIP10-K9 and ASA5510-CSC10-K9, now the scenario is to do failover Active/Standby statefull. On the Model Comparison Sheet of CISCO ASA5500 Series, mentioned that For Failover on ASA 5510 required a Security Plus licenses and On Cisco ASA Command Configuration Guide there mentioned Base licenses work required Security Plus license for ASA 5505 only. So in my case is it required to have Security Plus license or not??? Another for failover, both device should be identical but i have two different model device- AIP and CSC. So for this if i remove the module AIP and CSC from the devices will it be working for failover on normal base firewall mode ASA.If there is any other method to fulfill this scenario then please suggest me. Please provide any such procedure that made my Cisco ASA 5510 be used on fail over mode. It will be great help from the experts like you. Thank You Regards, Fourprosit ___ 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 ASA 5510 Failover- Active/StandBy
Yes i remember you need a certain license to be able to do failover . You could just try to configure it and if you don;t have the proper license it should say something about that , or just contact your cisco reseller --- On Sun, 9/12/10, Fourpros it fourpro...@gmail.com wrote: From: Fourpros it fourpro...@gmail.com Subject: [c-nsp] Cisco ASA 5510 Failover- Active/StandBy To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Date: Sunday, September 12, 2010, 2:57 PM Dear experts, I have two Cisco ASA 5510, Model ASA5510-AIP10-K9 and ASA5510-CSC10-K9, now the scenario is to do failover Active/Standby statefull. On the Model Comparison Sheet of CISCO ASA5500 Series, mentioned that For Failover on ASA 5510 required a Security Plus licenses and On Cisco ASA Command Configuration Guide there mentioned Base licenses work required Security Plus license for ASA 5505 only. So in my case is it required to have Security Plus license or not??? Another for failover, both device should be identical but i have two different model device- AIP and CSC. So for this if i remove the module AIP and CSC from the devices will it be working for failover on normal base firewall mode ASA.If there is any other method to fulfill this scenario then please suggest me. Please provide any such procedure that made my Cisco ASA 5510 be used on fail over mode. It will be great help from the experts like you. Thank You Regards, Fourprosit ___ 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] REP support on 7600
On 2010-09-12, at 7:20 AM, Łukasz Bromirski luk...@bromirski.net wrote: On 2010-09-12 13:00, Mark Tinka wrote: On Saturday, September 11, 2010 04:21:55 pm Saku Ytti wrote: They have full blown MPLS support, LSR, LER, L2 and L3 MPLS VPN. But make sure everything you need is there, as it won't be feature complete at FCS. And all ports support MPLS; not like the fractured 3750ME. Right, because all ports on ME3600/3800 are connected to the same new silicon, driving the features/performance. As for the full blown MPLS support - ME3600 will not have VPLS, even after FCS. But there's EVC (like on the 7600 ES/ASR 9000), HQoS, and ton of new things that are coming down from higher-end platforms. 3800 does VPLS. 3600/3800 EVC is not exactly like the 7600/ASR. You can't xconnect on a service-instance. You have to put the service-instance into a bridge-domain and do the xconnect on whatever SVI corresponds to the bridge-domain. -- Everything will be okay in the end. | Łukasz Bromirski If it's not okay, it's not the end. | http://lukasz.bromirski.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] Recommendation request for gateway router specs
I'd look at the ISR2 series if you want a good price/performance balance. According to Cisco the 3925E (that's the one with the newer SPE-200) can easily push a couple of hundred megabits and comes with four gig Ethernet ports as standard and 1 GB of memory (which you can upgrade to 2 GB) Aled On 30 August 2010 20:30, Nick Voth nv...@estreet.com wrote: Hello folks, I need to spec out a new gateway router that will support the following: Gig E connections (fiber and copper) to 2 separate upstream networks 1 or 2 Gig E connections back to our LAN eBGP, (probably a full BGP table for multi-homing capability) I know the BGP takes a lot of memory, but I'm new to having to manage a full BGP routing table. Beyond that, our needs for this piece of hardware are pretty simple. It doesn't need a lot of expansion capability, but does need to be hearty enough to handle the GigE, BGP, limted QoS and ACL configs. I'm most familiar with the 7206 VXR series, but that seems like over kill for this solution. Anyone have any general recommendations or guidance you'd be willing to share? Thanks, -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/ ___ 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] QoS on ingress
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote: I agree that TCP will back off if policed however if he only has 1M to work with he might be stuck. I've filled up a 1M pipe with an iPhone... If there are enough TCP sessions the congestion will still happen. Agree. Without explicit queue assignment/priority on the PE egress interface, anything you try to do on the CE is going to be best effort in terms of effectiveness. Shaping all non-voice inbound traffic to 90% or so of your CIR to try to protect the voice traffic is probably about the best you can do. A significant amount of non-voice UDP traffic is still going to kill you, though. B* -- Brian C Landers http://www.packetslave.com/ CCIE #23115 (RS + Security) ___ 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] ASIC to switch port mapping
(I assume the response was to this or similar) On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 13:43 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: Cisco does not think that this is a problem, and I have been told that the new generation 2960S and 3560E have the same size buffers. On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 08:26 -0400, Chris Evans wrote: They are closet switches. If you need bigger buffers get a platform meant for heavier use such as the 4948. We've heard Cisco use that argument, and it's hilarious. The problem is _also_ there in the closets. Even end user PCs actually need bandwidth. We currently use 3750 and 3560E models in our datacenters, based on a recommendation from the (AFAIK) largest gold partner in our country. When whining about the buffer problem, everybody says Nexus 5k and a few say 4948. Seriously: Is it okay for Cisco to sell handicapped closet switches? It's not like they're cheap compared to others vendors or previous comparable Cisco switches (3550/2950/2970). -- Peter ___ 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] ASIC to switch port mapping
IMHO the 3750/3560 series are way overpriced and underperforming switches. I'd honestly give the Juniper EX4200 series a look if you're looking for a direct class comparison, but looking for better performance at a lower cost. Our Cisco HTTS engineers have directly come out and said that they will not support 3750/3560 switches for data center usage in our environment. Cat4948 is the platform to choose if you're looking for a 1RU footprint stand alone unit. Cat4948 vs N5K is a non-comparison. That's talking apples to oranges in regards are you comparing a L2/L3 copper GigE switch with 10Gig uplink capability (depending on model) vs a purely L2 switch that can do Copper GigE with Fabric extenders (minus the few onboard ports that can do GigE on 5K chassis itself).. Depending on the count of devices that you need, the N5K solution is waaay more expensive. Not to mention it doesn't do L3 until the Nexus 5500 series comes out later this year and only when enabled in software Q1 of next year. The N5K being a cut-through switch with VoQ doesn't have large buffers either. They use those features to make big buffers not much of a necessity, but there is always going to be that multiple in single out issue. It's just easier with the 5K as you can throw more bandwidth at it with VPC/port-channels and its large hashing bucket capability. To put it simply, these platforms service different requirements, but overlap in ways. On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Peter Rathlev pe...@rathlev.dk wrote: (I assume the response was to this or similar) On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 13:43 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: Cisco does not think that this is a problem, and I have been told that the new generation 2960S and 3560E have the same size buffers. On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 08:26 -0400, Chris Evans wrote: They are closet switches. If you need bigger buffers get a platform meant for heavier use such as the 4948. We've heard Cisco use that argument, and it's hilarious. The problem is _also_ there in the closets. Even end user PCs actually need bandwidth. We currently use 3750 and 3560E models in our datacenters, based on a recommendation from the (AFAIK) largest gold partner in our country. When whining about the buffer problem, everybody says Nexus 5k and a few say 4948. Seriously: Is it okay for Cisco to sell handicapped closet switches? It's not like they're cheap compared to others vendors or previous comparable Cisco switches (3550/2950/2970). -- Peter ___ 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] ASIC to switch port mapping
On 9/12/2010 1:05 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote: Seriously: Is it okay for Cisco to sell handicapped closet switches? It's not like they're cheap compared to others vendors or previous comparable Cisco switches (3550/2950/2970) We have held on to 2950/3550s for that very purpose, where their newer counterparts present excessive drops. Rather than being pushed toward surplus, It is particularly annoying on an EMI (L3) switch actually doing routing. 2960s are especially prone to drops (esp if mls qos enabled). Jeff ___ 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 ASA 5510 Failover- Active/StandBy (Fourpros it)
Hello-- Yes, you need the Security Plus license for failover / High Availability. You can easily tell if the license you have on the ASA supports failover. Run the show ver command and look for the following: Licensed features for this platform: Maximum Physical Interfaces : Unlimited Maximum VLANs: 100 Inside Hosts : Unlimited Failover : Active/Active Cisco's ASA model comparison found at http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6120/prod_models_comparison.html shows that the 5505 is limited to a stateless active /standby failover configuration. The 5510 can be stateful active/active or active/standby. In order to configure active/active high availability on the ASA you must configure contexts which creates multiple logical firewalls. Make sure that the exact same ASA firmware is installed, and the exact same modules are installed. Configuring failover is fairly easy: Primary ASA: interface Ethernet0/1 description Outisde - Internet ip address 10.1.254.254 255.255.255.0 standby 10.1.254.252 no shut interface Ethernet0/0 description Inside - Trusted LANs ip address 6.7.8.9 255.255.255.0 standby 6.7.8.10 no shut failover lan unit primary failover lan interface failover e0/3 failover interface ip failover 10.1.253.254 255.255.255.252 standby 10.1.253.253 int e0/3 description Failover link failover link failover e0/3 no shut Failover ASA: failover lan interface failover e0/3 failover interface ip failover 10.1.253.254 255.255.255.252 standby 10.1.253.253 int e0/3 description Failover link failover link failover e0/3 no shut failover lan unit secondary failover Primary ASA: wr me wr standby cjw Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 17:42:43 +0545 From: Fourpros it fourpro...@gmail.com To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Cisco ASA 5510 Failover- Active/StandBy Message-ID: aanlktinbpj641ufyiqb22zmdwan-9hlp83rzdq+qq...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear experts, I have two Cisco ASA 5510, Model ASA5510-AIP10-K9 and ASA5510-CSC10-K9, now the scenario is to do failover Active/Standby statefull. On the Model Comparison Sheet of CISCO ASA5500 Series, mentioned that For Failover on ASA 5510 required a Security Plus licenses and On Cisco ASA Command Configuration Guide there mentioned Base licenses work required Security Plus license for ASA 5505 only. So in my case is it required to have Security Plus license or not??? Another for failover, both device should be identical but i have two different model device- AIP and CSC. So for this if i remove the module AIP and CSC from the devices will it be working for failover on normal base firewall mode ASA.If there is any other method to fulfill this scenario then please suggest me. Please provide any such procedure that made my Cisco ASA 5510 be used on fail over mode. It will be great help from the experts like you. Thank You Regards, Fourprosit ___ 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] ASIC to switch port mapping
Hi Jeff On 12.09.2010, at 19:32, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote: We have held on to 2950/3550s for that very purpose, where their newer counterparts present excessive drops. Rather than being pushed toward surplus, It is particularly annoying on an EMI (L3) switch actually doing routing. 2960s are especially prone to drops (esp if mls qos enabled). Does this include 2960Gs? thanks Andrew ___ 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] ASIC to switch port mapping
Hi, On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 08:41:49PM +0200, Andrew Miehs wrote: 2960s are especially prone to drops (esp if mls qos enabled). Does this include 2960Gs? Yes. 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 pgpjOhqMdGhCn.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] ASIC to switch port mapping
You can always buy more switches and move ports. The 2960 and the hundreds of other switches (and blades) just like it is a wiring closet switch for the enterprise. It should be common knowledge (no offense if this is new information to you) that they are oversubscribed, have tiny buffers and are not suitable for anything but. The fact is that these switches cost anywhere from $800 - $2200 and support is also cheap. This allows us all to get all the users and printers connected on the cheap. 4900's, Juniper EX's and the hundreds of other switches (and blades)that are not oversubscribed, have large queues and can switch at line rate are about $4k - $20k. It may actually be cheaper to just buy another 2960 than to upgrade to something beefier. Is this really user traffic? Is the user actually pushing 1g of traffic or are the ASICs just filling up faster than the frames can be switched off the buffers? I've never actually seen queues overrun by something that wasn't server/enterprise grade. On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote: Hi, On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 08:41:49PM +0200, Andrew Miehs wrote: 2960s are especially prone to drops (esp if mls qos enabled). Does this include 2960Gs? Yes. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! // www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ___ 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] ASIC to switch port mapping
This is a VERY interesting topic. We need to have more attention at buffers size in our next aquisition. Thanks guy. 2010/9/12 Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com You can always buy more switches and move ports. The 2960 and the hundreds of other switches (and blades) just like it is a wiring closet switch for the enterprise. It should be common knowledge (no offense if this is new information to you) that they are oversubscribed, have tiny buffers and are not suitable for anything but. The fact is that these switches cost anywhere from $800 - $2200 and support is also cheap. This allows us all to get all the users and printers connected on the cheap. 4900's, Juniper EX's and the hundreds of other switches (and blades)that are not oversubscribed, have large queues and can switch at line rate are about $4k - $20k. It may actually be cheaper to just buy another 2960 than to upgrade to something beefier. Is this really user traffic? Is the user actually pushing 1g of traffic or are the ASICs just filling up faster than the frames can be switched off the buffers? I've never actually seen queues overrun by something that wasn't server/enterprise grade. On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote: Hi, On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 08:41:49PM +0200, Andrew Miehs wrote: 2960s are especially prone to drops (esp if mls qos enabled). Does this include 2960Gs? Yes. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! // www.muc.de/~gert/ http://www.muc.de/%7Egert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ___ 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/ -- []'s Lívio Zanol Puppim ___ 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] DNS Naming conventions for Switches
On Saturday, September 11, 2010 05:37:20 am Keegan Holley wrote: Reverse DNS helps with traceroute mostly. You can see which routers you are traversing without having to look up the routes or login to them. That's just about the only use I can think of. The biggest (and maybe, only) reason we - and I suppose, many on this list - implement it. 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] ASIC to switch port mapping
On Sunday, September 12, 2010 07:43:26 pm Gert Doering wrote: Cisco does not think that this is a problem, and I have been told that the new generation 2960S and 3560E have the same size buffers. Probably because these are Enterprise switches, and enterprise-anything shouldn't be trying to do provider- anything :-). Oh well... 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/
