Re: [c-nsp] DMVPN with OSPF

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Vikas Sharma wrote: Hi, Can I configure DMVPN with ospf. Is there ant scalabilty issue with ospf wrt DMVPN? I can not use EIGRP as I have non cisco devices in the network. http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/solution/dmvpn_x.pdf - --

Re: [c-nsp] mBGP problem

presumably you've reset the peer, made sure mcast routing is enabled, any other obvious things. Thanks for the reply; yes I tried all the usual. Strangely, it all started working sometime over the weekend, as if by magic. Thanks, Michael. -- Michael Robson, | Tel: 0161 275 6113

Re: [c-nsp] Load-balancing

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:52:33PM -0400, Julio Arruda wrote: Rodney, I understand there is already some l4 hashing in the etherchannel side of the house ? 6k I know does it in hardware. I think the 4k does it too. So the feature you mention would add L4 hashing into what specific

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco IAD2431

hello Tim, group indeed, CA place endpoint OOS . But , problem arise if MGCP endpoint located under nat and ca behind vpf. Lets figure out, for example , external ip of nat router was changed. In that case endpoint still silent , cause endpoint didnt know about such path changes. Ca comes to

[c-nsp] ADSL QOS

We are using BT for DSL here in the UK, and I am trying to prioritise voice over the connection. On our L2TP gateway I have :- policy-map 1MegLLQ class voice priority 1000 policy-map shape1Meg class class-default shape average 100 service-policy 1MegLLQ

Re: [c-nsp] ADSL QOS

Hi Ian, You need to use the pre classify on the virtual template qos pre-classify Search llq for vpn on cco Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian MacKinnon Sent: martedì 19 giugno 2007 15.41 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

[c-nsp] MSMQ, IP Router Alert and melting switches

Greetings, We've recently run into a problem with a home-grown application that uses MSMQ 'Reliable Multicast' (ie PGM) to communicate. Long story cut short, PGM relies on a set of packets called SPMs all of which have the IP Option 'Router Alert' set. This is one of those things that seem like

[c-nsp] HWIC-3G-GSM / HWIC-3G-CDMA

Hi Guys, I wanted to hear if anybody has any positive / negative experiences regarding these new cards. I want to order a few to test hear about opinions regarding these. I see one need to have a very cutting-edge IOS to run them. cheers /rolf ___

[c-nsp] Still confused by Cisco's NAT syntax

Hello list, after all these years, I am still not quite sure I understand Cisco's NAT syntax. I have read the famous NAT Order of Operation (CCO doc ID: 6209), and Configuring Network Address Translation: Getting Started (CCO doc ID: 13772) documents, and I have two questions. Let's

[c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

We are looking for a cheap, but solid L2 48-port switch. My investigations have led me to the WS-C2948G and the WS-C3548-XL-EN. I know the 2948G is CatOS based, and the 3548 is IOS based (and both are EOL'ed). Any experiences with these switches in a light-duty environment would be

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

Subject: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN? We are looking for a cheap, but solid L2 48-port switch. My investigations have led me to the WS-C2948G and the WS-C3548-XL-EN. I know the 2948G is CatOS based, and the 3548 is IOS based (and both are EOL'ed). Any experiences

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

TCIS List Acct wrote: We are looking for a cheap, but solid L2 48-port switch. My investigations have led me to the WS-C2948G and the WS-C3548-XL-EN. I know the 2948G is CatOS based, and the 3548 is IOS based (and both are EOL'ed). Any experiences with these switches in a light-duty

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

On Jun 19, 2007, at 4:04 PM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote: TCIS List Acct wrote: We are looking for a cheap, but solid L2 48-port switch. My investigations have led me to the WS-C2948G and the WS-C3548-XL-EN. I know the 2948G is CatOS based, and the 3548 is IOS based (and both are EOL'ed).

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

Steve Feldman wrote: No, the 3548XL is layer 2 only. I think the layer 3 features started showing up in the 3550 series switches. IIRC, the XLs are all L2 only. The 29nnXLs were strictly 100Mbps while the 35nnXLs had Gig (uplinks). We still have many of the 3500XL-series switches in

Re: [c-nsp] Still confused by Cisco's NAT syntax

Hi, NAT can be quite confusing. This is my view of it, but please feel free to correct if I'm wrong 1. If packet arrives on an interface marked as inside 2. AND route for packet destination address is known via an interface marked as outside 3. THEN translate source address

Re: [c-nsp] DMVPN with OSPF

--- Vikas Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can I configure DMVPN with ospf. Is there ant scalabilty issue with ospf wrt DMVPN? DMVPN will work fine with OSPF - I've had decent success with it. The scaling issue you'll encounter is that a single DMVPN should be treated like a single broadcast