Re: [c-nsp] Routing design question

Hi, On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 11:34:40PM -0400, Jason Ford wrote: Approach 2: 1. put /30 subnets on each link between each 6503 (both at site A and B) and run a routing protocol like eigrp. We have a handful of static routes (less than 40) that range from /25 to /30's connected to each

[c-nsp] High CPU Utilization

Dear All, I have got a cisco 2800 router. its CPU is continously monitored to be 99%. it has got only two fast ethernet ports and traffic on these ports reaches to maximum. when you analyze the traffic goin thru these ports, Max is IP traffic.(98%). i tried fast switching on these ports using ip

Re: [c-nsp] High CPU Utilization

It's not really clear from your email but it looks like you are saying that you are maxing out your Fast Ethernet interfaces. Is this right? What is your average packet size? What services are running on the box (BGP, firewall etc)? Even the fastest 2800 model (2851) can barely push 100mbps of

Re: [c-nsp] Routing design question

On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 09:56:06AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: Well, if it's truly gigE, then auto-negotiation will be more responsive to failures than UDLD. Will auto-neg signal one-way fiber failures (after the link has already been brought up and autoneg'ed successfully)? Never tried

[c-nsp] 7606 not logging interface changes

Hi We just noticed that our 76XX and problably out 65XX machines dont log interface Up or down messages. They all have logging buffered 64000 debugging. Could not find a matching bug at cisco.com. Has anyone seen this? Best Regards Mattias Gyllenvarg Omnitron Sweden

Re: [c-nsp] 7606 not logging interface changes

Wyatt Mattias Ishmael Jovial Gyllenvarg [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/27/07 10:59 AM We just noticed that our 76XX and problably out 65XX machines dont log interface Up or down messages. They all have logging buffered 64000 debugging. Try logging event link-status default in global config (not

Re: [c-nsp] 7606 not logging interface changes

Check the logging event link-status default config command. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6017/products_command_reference_chapter09186a00808829a0.html#wp1012561 I think there was a bug (CSCsb66248 ?) around this one in some SXF versions. -- Tassos Wyatt Mattias Ishmael Jovial

Re: [c-nsp] High CPU Utilization

It might be worth pasting the output of: router#show int router#show proc cpu sorted (only need first 10 lines or so) and router#show run int fa0/0 router#show run int fa0/1 when it is running at 99%, to this list as well. You may well be running the router beyond its capabilities, but it

Re: [c-nsp] Multicast routing table and snmp visualization tool ?

check out this url, it has some tools, I don't know if they do what you want: http://www.caida.org/tools/measurement/Mantra/other-tools/other-tools.html --koug On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Xavier Beaudouin wrote: Hello, I am looking for a good tool to use and see what multicast groups I have

Re: [c-nsp] 12.2(33)SRB, ip tacacs command on 7604

SRB2 is scheduled to be released tomorrow...I'm also waiting on that build :-) -Original Message- From: Justin Shore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:06 PM To: Christian Bering Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 12.2(33)SRB, ip tacacs

Re: [c-nsp] 12.2(33)SRB, ip tacacs command on 7604

Huh, last I heard it was pushed back to 10/12, they still had 'important issues' to resolve as of 9/25. ~Matt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Munroe, James (DSS/MAS) Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:50 AM To: Justin Shore; Christian

[c-nsp] Redundant default route, without round-robin routing

Hello list, I would like your ideas to complete my design. This is an ISP network. All 10 routers in the city are interconnected on a /27 subnet, over which everybody has a full OSPF adjacency with the DR and the BDR. Two of those routers are BGP-connected to the upstream providers

Re: [c-nsp] Bridging ATM PVCs to VLANs

If its an option - try to speak with customer to do things on layer3, so u dont need bridging. Meaning - you aggregate all those PVCs on your router, and towards customer you have one or several VLANs. A -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of

[c-nsp] PFR

So I see Cisco has just announced PFR. Has anyone here worked with it already? Thoughts? Bugs? Is it the major improvement over OER that it's made out to be or just lipstick on a pig? Is it worth considering over one of the route optimization appliances on the market? Thanks, Andrew

Re: [c-nsp] Redundant default route, without round-robin routing

Vincent, If you want to multihome in an 'active/active' configuration, you need full tables... regards, dirk Hello list, I would like your ideas to complete my design. This is an ISP network. All 10 routers in the city are interconnected on a /27 subnet, over which everybody has a

Re: [c-nsp] Redundant default route, without round-robin routing

On Thu, September 27, 2007 2:25 pm, Vincent De Keyzer wrote: I was thinking of having both BGP routers advertising a default route in OSPF; but in this case, in order to limit packet out-of-sequence problems, I want to make sure that every IP flow uses the same default gateway. Is there a

Re: [c-nsp] Redundant default route, without round-robin routing

How about using object tracking? Everything sends default traffic to one BGP router, and, if the object is fails, the router uses a higher-metric static that points to the other BGP router. Of course, that puts all the load on the primary.

Re: [c-nsp] Redundant default route, without round-robin routing

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Vincent De Keyzer wrote: I was thinking of having both BGP routers advertising a default route in OSPF; but in this case, in order to limit packet out-of-sequence problems, I want to make sure that every IP flow uses the same default gateway. Have you tried having one of

Re: [c-nsp] Redundant default route, without round-robin routing

Vincent De Keyzer wrote on Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:25 PM: Hello list, I would like your ideas to complete my design. This is an ISP network. All 10 routers in the city are interconnected on a /27 subnet, over which everybody has a full OSPF adjacency with the DR and the BDR.

Re: [c-nsp] service monitoring on a small scale?

On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 12:58:42PM -0500, neal rauhauser wrote: Yesterday we cooked a POS card in a 7507 and the customer has just had it with stuff breaking at 0200 and learning about it at 0900 via fifty angry customer messages. The failure modes we see are not simple link up/down

Re: [c-nsp] LDP loop detection/prevention as per RFC 3036

Jeff Tantsura mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:34 PM: Hi, Could someone from Cisco please clarify whether this has been implemented? no, not to my knowledge. oli ___ cisco-nsp mailing list

Re: [c-nsp] service monitoring on a small scale?

We use IPM 2.6 (part of CiscoWorks) which puts a GUI around the configuration and reporting of IP SLA functionality. You can create custom collectors that do things like load a web page, define thresholds, and then do things like Syslog or SNMP trap when the thresholds are exceeded... You can

[c-nsp] ATOM over CsC ?

Hi All, does anyone have idea about possibility to tunnel L2VPN (ATOM) over Backbone Carrier in CSC setup? Thanks, Regards. -- Krivosheev Igor E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

[c-nsp] Ping packet 1400byte on cisco consume 2Mbps of bandwith

Dear all, i have a network like this : ISP Metro Ethernet link Cisco Router A = Catalyst 2900 = Catalyst == Cisco Router B Condition : 1. ISP Link is 1,5Mbps 2. All off Interconection link using UTP Cat5 Problem : If Router A ping to Router

Re: [c-nsp] ATOM over CsC ?

According to Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer): [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:09 PM: Hi All, does anyone have idea about possibility to tunnel L2VPN (ATOM) over Backbone Carrier in CSC setup? Well, nothing prevents you from doing so.. The AToM PE's within the

[c-nsp] Cisco 2851 with HWIC-4ESW and CBR configuration.

Hello, I try to configure CBR for the interface GIgabit and the fa0/1/0 (HWIC-4ESW interface) and it return an error. (config-if)#bridge-group 1 FastEthernet0/1/0 does not support bridging The System image file is flash:c2800nm-ipvoice-mz.123-14.T7.bin. and the configuration is: ... ! bridge

Re: [c-nsp] Ping packet 1400byte on cisco consume 2Mbps of bandwith

Supply router and card types. On 9/27/07, Aladi Saputra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear all, i have a network like this : ISP Metro Ethernet link Cisco Router A = Catalyst 2900 = Catalyst == Cisco Router B Condition : 1. ISP Link is

[c-nsp] L2VPN Local Switching VLAN to VLAN issue on 7200VXR/NPE-G1

I've been working with a client trying to get this working. We tried 12.2(31)SB6, 12.4(15)T1 IP Services and 12.4(15)T1 Advanced IP Services. It works fine for Ethernet to Ethernet, or Ethernet to VLAN, but it doesn't work for VLAN to VLAN either on the same interface or on different

Re: [c-nsp] Ping packet 1400byte on cisco consume 2Mbps of bandwith

Hi Aaron, verify if the connection between the switches is loop-free. Regards, ./diogo -montagner On 9/27/07, Aaron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Supply router and card types. On 9/27/07, Aladi Saputra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear all, i have a network like this :

Re: [c-nsp] default-information originate... always

AFAIK, always means inject the default route even if you haven't learned it from somewhere else (BGP, Static, etc). Regards Juan At 13:49 27/09/2007, Vincent De Keyzer wrote: Something else, related to this topic: please confirm my understanding below. * default-information

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 2851 with HWIC-4ESW and CBR configuration.

6:52pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I try to configure CBR for the interface GIgabit and the fa0/1/0 Why? Uh...nevermind... (HWIC-4ESW interface) and it return an error. That's because it's a switchport. Have you tried IRB and then tying the BVI to an SVI instead? bridge irb ! int fa0/1/0

Re: [c-nsp] Ping packet 1400byte on cisco consume 2Mbps of bandwith

1400 bytes is a size. 2Mbps is a rate How much bandwidth it uses will depend on how many packets are sent and how quickly.. Standard cisco ping will send 5 packets so this should result in approximately 0Mbps when displayed by a cisco 'show int' I would suggest if you see the link running

[c-nsp] 7304 questions, or router in- between 65xx/76xx and 7206

Folks, I basically need a router that does easily handle some 8 to 10 GE ports, withprobably some 4 GE ports facing external ports and 4 ports internally. Traffic flow would be around 2-4 Gigs going through, mostly one direction. Will the 7304 handle that? The 3.5 mio pps scares me (the

Re: [c-nsp] 7304 questions, or router in- between 65xx/76xx and 7206

Hi, On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 10:02:51PM +0200, Alexander Koch wrote: I could be wrong, but there is seemingly no useful box that does handle some real Gigs and performs normally. And the 65xx sucks because of the amount of routes (go figure). Well, you could use a 65xx-XL - 1 Million routes,

Re: [c-nsp] Redundant default route, without round-robin routing

Vincent De Keyzer wrote on Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:46 PM: Thanks for the many replies. To answer Tim's question: I don't really care, traffic can go to both A and B, or go to A and then B if A fails: what I care for is out-of-sequence packets. Oliver's answer sounds reassuring -

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 2851 with HWIC-4ESW and CBR configuration.

Curtis Doty wrote: 6:52pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I try to configure CBR for the interface GIgabit and the fa0/1/0 Why? Uh...nevermind... One reason may be to bridge the ports of a POE enabled module into a network for the POE capability and not waste a port on an uplink. ~Seth

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 2851 with HWIC-4ESW and CBR configuration.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I try to configure CBR for the interface GIgabit and the fa0/1/0 (HWIC-4ESW interface) and it return an error. I suspect you'll need to bridge on an SVI instead - try adding Fa1/0/1 to a VLAN, and bridge on the VLAN interface. HWIC-4ESW ports are plain layer 2

Re: [c-nsp] Pix/PDM Problem

I've had the problem that you're describing, too, but I believe that's a separate issue from this new one we're discussing. Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Smith Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:49 PM To: