Re: [c-nsp] changing from ospf to eigrp
Not, but it does mean those SPs should carefully consider the features that they do and don't get when buying enterprise gear. Like in we promise you this gear will do IPv6 in the future. Hehe, yes something like that. But seriously, if SPs weren't buying the enterprise gear (3560 and 3750) and were insisting on IPv6 on SP gear (ME-3400), I'm very confident it would be there too. It really is very simple: If a feature really moves more boxes, we will get that feature. (Of cause, buying 10K boxes makes a much bigger impression than buying 10). -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] changing from ospf to eigrp
This is C-NSP, right? The 3750 is built for enterprises and, in my opinion, the DSBU is very customer-focused, when it comes to enterprise-requested features. It may be built for enterprises, but that doesn't mean it's not very useful for SPs too. Not, but it does mean those SPs should carefully consider the features that they do and don't get when buying enterprise gear. That was my point. -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] changing from ospf to eigrp
Business reasons - Cisco knows they can get away with charging more for equipment which can switch packets in hardware and run IS-IS, so they do. The ME 3400 is actually cheaper than the 3750 and does ISIS. (Yes, I know it a somewhat limited version of ISIS, bu still) -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] changing from ospf to eigrp
Hi, On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 02:46:31PM +0200, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote: Not, but it does mean those SPs should carefully consider the features that they do and don't get when buying enterprise gear. Like in we promise you this gear will do IPv6 in the future. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: +49-89-35655025[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpvz6to3WtuG.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] changing from ospf to eigrp
I always assumed that the 3750/3560 didn't do IS-IS because Cisco didnt' want to engineer CLNS support into the ASICs used in them? The IS-IS support has nothing to do with the ASICs, both IS-IS and OSPF are done in software (the hardware just needs a suitable filter to punt the interesting packets to up to the processor). Seems a bit odd to me, even more so that I guess in the next few years we'll have significantly more people using IS-IS to make IPv6 nicer to deal with? Business reasons - Cisco knows they can get away with charging more for equipment which can switch packets in hardware and run IS-IS, so they do. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] changing from ospf to eigrp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes in reply to: Adam Armstrong whom wrote: I always assumed that the 3750/3560 didn't do IS-IS because Cisco didn't want to engineer CLNS support into the ASICs used in them? The IS-IS support has nothing to do with the ASICs, both IS-IS and OSPF are done in software (the hardware just needs a suitable filter to punt the interesting packets to up to the processor). Having just gone through an EIGRP-OSPF-IS-IS migration, I can tell you that the 3750 has no problems with IS-IS. But, and here's the kicker: METRO version only. Sigh. c3750me-i5-mz.122-25.SEG3.bin is the code train we're using. there doesn't appear to be IPv6 suppport in this one, although IOS navigator says that c3750me-i5k91-mz.122-44.SE1.bin has it. Haven't had a chance to play with it yet. ___ 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] changing from ospf to eigrp
Leif Sawyer wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes in reply to: Adam Armstrong whom wrote: I always assumed that the 3750/3560 didn't do IS-IS because Cisco didn't want to engineer CLNS support into the ASICs used in them? The IS-IS support has nothing to do with the ASICs, both IS-IS and OSPF are done in software (the hardware just needs a suitable filter to punt the interesting packets to up to the processor). Having just gone through an EIGRP-OSPF-IS-IS migration, I can tell you that the 3750 has no problems with IS-IS. But, and here's the kicker: METRO version only. Sigh. The 3750ME is a very different device to the 3750, which is almost identical to the 3560. Makes sense, no? 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] changing from ospf to eigrp
Hi, On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 05:34:18PM +0100, Adam Armstrong wrote: How's V6 on EIGRP? Never tried that. When we rolled out IPv6, all that existed was OSPFv3 (actually, all there was was BGP and RIPng, but OSPFv3 came fairly soon), so we've kind of stuck to that. [..] We do ISIS for loopbacks/router links and BGP for all other prefixes. Sounds like use ISIS for loopbacks/router links and BGP for all other prefixes for IPv6 to me :-) Sadly the ISIS does lock us out of using some hardware properly (like the 3750). Yes, the wonders of Cisco BU decisions... (another BU than my usual source of joy, but nonetheless not overly customer-oriented either). gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: +49-89-35655025[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpvZKrRTJVMk.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] changing from ospf to eigrp
Also, if you ever want to buy a non-Cisco router for your network, you can't since you now run EIGRP. Which is a strong argument indeed. OTOH, EIGRP *is* a fairly nice protocol - easy to understand and debug, much nicer knobs to tweak for TE things (make this link bad for *this* prefix only), fairly fast convergence out of the box, etc. How's V6 on EIGRP? (I know little about EIGRP, does it need a new version for V6 like OSPF? Does it exist?) Not having to dual IGP for V6 is one of the main plus points of ISIS imo. We do ISIS for loopbacks/router links and BGP for all other prefixes. Sadly the ISIS does lock us out of using some hardware properly (like the 3750). 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] changing from ospf to eigrp
Is EIGRP multiprotocol? Yes, and no. Cisco says yes mostly because ... well, just because it can route for IP, IPv6, IPX, AppleTalk. Some argue that point and insist that the fact that it runs as multiple independent processes (protocol depended modules) means it is closer to a ships in the night approach than the term multiprotocol tag implies. Also - EIGRP for IPv6 is not supported by Catalyst devices as of today, IIRC. /TJ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Armstrong Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 12:34 PM To: Gert Doering; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] changing from ospf to eigrp Also, if you ever want to buy a non-Cisco router for your network, you can't since you now run EIGRP. Which is a strong argument indeed. OTOH, EIGRP *is* a fairly nice protocol - easy to understand and debug, much nicer knobs to tweak for TE things (make this link bad for *this* prefix only), fairly fast convergence out of the box, etc. How's V6 on EIGRP? (I know little about EIGRP, does it need a new version for V6 like OSPF? Does it exist?) Not having to dual IGP for V6 is one of the main plus points of ISIS imo. We do ISIS for loopbacks/router links and BGP for all other prefixes. Sadly the ISIS does lock us out of using some hardware properly (like the 3750). 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/
Re: [c-nsp] changing from ospf to eigrp
I would like to change our layer 3 switches from ospf to eirgrp. Is there a way I can accomplish this on a live system without causing problems? Can I run both at the same time? You realize that if you ever want to run MPLS you need OSPF and not EIGRP. Also, if you ever want to buy a non-Cisco router for your network, you can't since you now run EIGRP. But I'm sure you knew that already. -Hank ___ 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] changing from ospf to eigrp
I suggest to you the article Understanding Redistribution http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/09/understanding-redistribution-part-i/ This article didn't explain the process of migration from OSPF to EIGRP but it give to you many tips about redistribution scenary. This tips could be very useful during your migration. Best regards, ./diogo -montagner On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Hank Nussbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to change our layer 3 switches from ospf to eirgrp. Is there a way I can accomplish this on a live system without causing problems? Can I run both at the same time? You realize that if you ever want to run MPLS you need OSPF and not EIGRP. Also, if you ever want to buy a non-Cisco router for your network, you can't since you now run EIGRP. But I'm sure you knew that already. -Hank ___ 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/ -- ./diogo -montagner ___ 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] changing from ospf to eigrp
Hi, On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 08:39:44PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote: I would like to change our layer 3 switches from ospf to eirgrp. Is there a way I can accomplish this on a live system without causing problems? Can I run both at the same time? You realize that if you ever want to run MPLS you need OSPF and not EIGRP. Not quite correct. As far as I understand, you need OSPF or ISIS for MPLS *TE*, but for plain MPLS (to be used for MPLS L3 VPN or EoMPLS pseudowire or such), EIGRP will do just fine. (Or if not, please don't tell my routers, because they are currently doing MPLS VPN and EoMPLS with EIGRP just fine, and I don't want them to notice that this is impossible and stop doing so...) Also, if you ever want to buy a non-Cisco router for your network, you can't since you now run EIGRP. Which is a strong argument indeed. OTOH, EIGRP *is* a fairly nice protocol - easy to understand and debug, much nicer knobs to tweak for TE things (make this link bad for *this* prefix only), fairly fast convergence out of the box, etc. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: +49-89-35655025[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpxa2iIXoAs4.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] changing from ospf to eigrp
Hello, I would like to change our layer 3 switches from ospf to eirgrp. Is there a way I can accomplish this on a live system without causing problems? Can I run both at the same time? Thanks, Dan. ___ 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] changing from ospf to eigrp
Can I run both at the same time? - You can run both at the same time. I would like to change our layer 3 switches from ospf to eirgrp. Is there a way I can accomplish this on a live system without causing problems? - If you talking about redistribution between IGPs, then technically yes. Just be very careful not to create a routing loop. A strategy on how to do this will all depend on the size of your network and the complexity of the migration. May I inquire as to why your moving from OSPF to EIGRP? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dan Letkeman Sent: Fri 4/4/2008 7:48 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] changing from ospf to eigrp Hello, I would like to change our layer 3 switches from ospf to eirgrp. Is there a way I can accomplish this on a live system without causing problems? Can I run both at the same time? Thanks, Dan. ___ 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] changing from ospf to eigrp
We just went through years of pain and money to change from eigrp to ospf. :-) Jeff Cartier wrote: Can I run both at the same time? - You can run both at the same time. I would like to change our layer 3 switches from ospf to eirgrp. Is there a way I can accomplish this on a live system without causing problems? - If you talking about redistribution between IGPs, then technically yes. Just be very careful not to create a routing loop. A strategy on how to do this will all depend on the size of your network and the complexity of the migration. May I inquire as to why your moving from OSPF to EIGRP? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dan Letkeman Sent: Fri 4/4/2008 7:48 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] changing from ospf to eigrp Hello, I would like to change our layer 3 switches from ospf to eirgrp. Is there a way I can accomplish this on a live system without causing problems? Can I run both at the same time? Thanks, Dan. ___ 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] changing from ospf to eigrp
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Dan Letkeman wrote: Hello, I would like to change our layer 3 switches from ospf to eirgrp. Is there a way I can accomplish this on a live system without causing problems? Yes. I've done the opposite without much grief but we still called a it flag day and did everything in one maintenance window. Can I run both at the same time? YesBut keep in mind that EIGRP carries with it an administrative distance of only '5' whereas OSPF is at 110.You might consider moving the adminstrative distance for EIGRP to something above OSPF across your network until everyhting is in both routing processes. Then kill off OSFP and move AD back to it's default values. rgds, --r ___ 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] changing from ospf to eigrp
Can I run both at the same time? If you do, you may want to consider tweaking the administrative distances until EIGRP has been fully implemented across the network. Remember, by default EIGRP has an AD of 90 (internal) and OSPF of 110, so EIGRP-learned routes will be preferred. This has the potential to cause problems if EIGRP is misconfigured or only partially enabled during migration. stretch http://www.packetlife.net/ Dan Letkeman wrote: Hello, I would like to change our layer 3 switches from ospf to eirgrp. Is there a way I can accomplish this on a live system without causing problems? Can I run both at the same time? Thanks, Dan. ___ 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] changing from ospf to eigrp
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Robert J. Huey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: YesBut keep in mind that EIGRP carries with it an administrative distance of only '5' whereas OSPF is at 110.You might consider moving the adminstrative distance for EIGRP to something above OSPF across your network until everyhting is in both routing processes. Then kill off OSFP and move AD back to it's default values. rgds, --r EIGRP Summary Routes have an admin distance of 5 and have to be configured manually on a per interface basis Normal EIGRP Routes have an admin distance of 90 OSPF is admin distance is 110 My questions when doing this doing this would be. 1. How complicated is the network? 2. What better, rolling EIGRP in from the edges to the core, or out from the core to the edges? The beauty of moving from OSPF TO EIGRP is, in theory at least, the EIGRP Routes will be prefered over the OSPF Routes when the administrative distance is the deciding factor. Cheers ___ 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] changing from ospf to eigrp
So long as the OSPF network remains intact until the EIGRP network is up and running, OSPF should effectively operate as a backup route in the cases where EIGRP has no route, correct? It'd it be like running a floating static route, except your using a dynamic routing protocol, wouldn't it? On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Jeremy Stretch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can I run both at the same time? If you do, you may want to consider tweaking the administrative distances until EIGRP has been fully implemented across the network. Remember, by default EIGRP has an AD of 90 (internal) and OSPF of 110, so EIGRP-learned routes will be preferred. This has the potential to cause problems if EIGRP is misconfigured or only partially enabled during migration. stretch http://www.packetlife.net/ Dan Letkeman wrote: Hello, I would like to change our layer 3 switches from ospf to eirgrp. Is there a way I can accomplish this on a live system without causing problems? Can I run both at the same time? Thanks, Dan. ___ 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] changing from ospf to eigrp
What you are doing is known as ships in the night routing where you run multiple protocols that are unaware of each other, I would go ahead and deploy your EIGRP config while keeping your OSPF running and as someone else has mentioned the default admin distance for EIGRP is 90 which will take precedence over your 110 OSPF, bare in mind if you use redistributed routes in EIGRP they will show up as admin distance of 170 though. Either way just go from router to router deploying your EIGRP and then when your happy you've done all your devices go and check your route tables to see what OSPF routes are still showing up and then determine why, and if they are needed, as EIGRP obviously isn't seeing them (at least from a non redistributed PoV). OSPF will pick up your slack while you deploy this in the above method, the only real danger I see is if you a) miss a router or b) fail to check the route tables for remaining OSPF routes after full EIGRP migration before turning OSPF off. Ben On 05/04/2008, at 12:30 PM, Whisper wrote: So long as the OSPF network remains intact until the EIGRP network is up and running, OSPF should effectively operate as a backup route in the cases where EIGRP has no route, correct? It'd it be like running a floating static route, except your using a dynamic routing protocol, wouldn't it? On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Jeremy Stretch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can I run both at the same time? If you do, you may want to consider tweaking the administrative distances until EIGRP has been fully implemented across the network. Remember, by default EIGRP has an AD of 90 (internal) and OSPF of 110, so EIGRP-learned routes will be preferred. This has the potential to cause problems if EIGRP is misconfigured or only partially enabled during migration. stretch http://www.packetlife.net/ Dan Letkeman wrote: Hello, I would like to change our layer 3 switches from ospf to eirgrp. Is there a way I can accomplish this on a live system without causing problems? Can I run both at the same time? Thanks, Dan. ___ 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/ ___ 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] changing from ospf to eigrp
Actually just to correct myself before anyone else decides to, I think ships in the night refers to using a different network protocol aswell as a different routing protocol working independently of each other, ie ipv6 with OSPF and ipv4 with EIGRP, either way you get my drift :) On 05/04/2008, at 1:39 PM, Ben Steele wrote: What you are doing is known as ships in the night routing where you run multiple protocols that are unaware of each other, I would go ahead and deploy your EIGRP config while keeping your OSPF running and as someone else has mentioned the default admin distance for EIGRP is 90 which will take precedence over your 110 OSPF, bare in mind if you use redistributed routes in EIGRP they will show up as admin distance of 170 though. Either way just go from router to router deploying your EIGRP and then when your happy you've done all your devices go and check your route tables to see what OSPF routes are still showing up and then determine why, and if they are needed, as EIGRP obviously isn't seeing them (at least from a non redistributed PoV). OSPF will pick up your slack while you deploy this in the above method, the only real danger I see is if you a) miss a router or b) fail to check the route tables for remaining OSPF routes after full EIGRP migration before turning OSPF off. Ben On 05/04/2008, at 12:30 PM, Whisper wrote: So long as the OSPF network remains intact until the EIGRP network is up and running, OSPF should effectively operate as a backup route in the cases where EIGRP has no route, correct? It'd it be like running a floating static route, except your using a dynamic routing protocol, wouldn't it? On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Jeremy Stretch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can I run both at the same time? If you do, you may want to consider tweaking the administrative distances until EIGRP has been fully implemented across the network. Remember, by default EIGRP has an AD of 90 (internal) and OSPF of 110, so EIGRP-learned routes will be preferred. This has the potential to cause problems if EIGRP is misconfigured or only partially enabled during migration. stretch http://www.packetlife.net/ Dan Letkeman wrote: Hello, I would like to change our layer 3 switches from ospf to eirgrp. Is there a way I can accomplish this on a live system without causing problems? Can I run both at the same time? Thanks, Dan. ___ 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/ ___ 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/
