Hi all
I am looking for a platform for the BGP peering edge of our network,
this will have multiple full BGP tables and carry all our transit
traffic.
We expect to have between 5-10 gbps of initial traffic capacity and
expect to grow over the net couple of years.
We are all Ethernet based
Hello,
Ed Ravin wrote:
d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6
\| /\| /
\ | / \ | /
switch-leased lineswitch
| |
Gabor Ivanszky wrote:
Hello,
Ed Ravin wrote:
d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6
\| /\| /
\ | / \ | /
switch-leased lineswitch
|
N7K-C7010 10 Slot Chassis, No Power Supplies, Fans Included$20,000
Operating System
N7KS1K9-401A1.1 Nexus 7000 Software Release 4.0 $0
Layer 3 features
N7K-LAN1K9 Nexus 7000 LAN Enterprise
Friend,
My CE has e-BGP with service provider PE.
If the MPLS link is down or some routing issue with in MPLS cloud, my CE will
dial in to my ISDN 3845 aggregator in my HO.
If the link comes back / BGP is UP with PE , my CE should disconnect ISDN and
work normally .
I am not planning for
I believe that you side is CE --- PE. One thing is very important to know
that you must reach your PE in appropriate manners while connecting using
ISDN circuit..
If you want to use automatic failover and just can't run routing
protocols..you can use IPSLA monitor
If you can't use routing
Generally for BGP peering you don't need all the fancy features that
the SIP-600 gives you, it's complete overkill. You are better off
just getting a 7600 with normal LAN linecards, otherwise your per-port
cost is going to be enormous.
Phil
On Jan 31, 2008, at 4:00 AM, William Jackson
The question is, What your service provider suggest? Do they provide
multiple eBGP sessions for CE, if yes they might want you to use it instead
of static route and you might end with load balancing, route filtering so
and soWell If you are going to use redundant eBGP you need to make it
sure
On (2008-01-31 09:54 -0500), Phil Bedard wrote:
Generally for BGP peering you don't need all the fancy features that
the SIP-600 gives you, it's complete overkill. You are better off
just getting a 7600 with normal LAN linecards, otherwise your per-port
cost is going to be enormous.
Its more a case of IOS features and platform capabilities than port
densities and costs, as both platforms can have high performance and
port densities.
Like I mentioned before, I would like the uptime to be as good as
possible, with regards to software upgrades and self healing in event of
bugs
MAC accounting is nice but given the price difference, sampled
(fudged) Netflow would have to suffice for me. If the router-type
Ethernet ports were 2x as expensive, then there is a compelling
argument, but when they are at least 10x the cost and you don't need
the features, it's hard to
Tom Sands wrote:
N7K-C7010 10 Slot Chassis, No Power Supplies, Fans Included $20,000
... plus all the other bits you want [snipped]
So basically a entry level one of these is around $200,000 then?
Subtract a wedge if you only want a single supervisor, add on another
chunk for extra line
I'm sure you could subtract 30-40% for the usual discount. Plus you
may only need one chassis instead of the usual two 6500s for a
redundant setup. That brings it back within reach perhaps.
Tim:
On Jan 31, 2008 11:45 AM, Alex Howells [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Sands wrote:
N7K-C7010 10
Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Hi
Currently I am using an OpenBSD box which has given no problems, as a
router/firewall for some colocated systems.
However, I would like to take advantage of some of the Cisco features
like NBAR, and the FTP proxy code (systems needing FTP with the
OpenBSD
Hi list,
When I was installing a new router I had the follow error:
Router#
*Jan 31 16:27:46.067: NV: Invalid Pointer value(44AF40A0) in private
configuration structure
*Jan 31 16:27:46.107: NV: Invalid Pointer value(44AF40A0) in private
configuration structure
*Jan 31 16:27:46.107:
I keep forgetting how SEP cards are placed in the VPN concentrator for
redundancy mode and parallel processing mode
Placement of SEP cards side by side = redundancy or parallel processing?
Thanks
Raman Sud
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
On Jan 30, 2008 12:19 PM, Rick Kunkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello folks,
I can't seem to find the info I'm looking for online...
Does anyone know if OAM pings are a supported comand in any IOS when using
a 3662 and a NM-1A-T3? I'm running 12.3(22) now.
Our 7200 supports it with a
Hi guys,
Is it expected behaviour that removing 'redistribute static route-map
whatever' results in 'redistribute static' taking its place in the running
config?
BR1#show run | b 4 vrf Internet
address-family ipv4 vrf Internet
no synchronization
redistribute static route-map
Christian Bering wrote on Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:02 PM:
Hi guys,
Is it expected behaviour that removing 'redistribute static route-map
whatever' results in 'redistribute static' taking its place in the
running config?
[...]
I am surprised to see 'redistribute static' appear in
LNDEN01RGW01 uptime is 6 years, 25 weeks, 4 days, 2 hours, 18 minutes System
restarted by power-on at 11:20:39 EDT Mon Aug 6 2001 System image file is
flash:c2500-i-l.120-14
cisco AS2509-RJ (68030) processor (revision K) with 6144K/2048K bytes of
memory.
Processor board ID 26229981, with hardware
Hi Matt,
Back in October you had recommended using the ONS system described below. I
was wondering if you or anyone on this forum could look over the items below
and see if anything is missing to complete this system?
2X 15454-TCC+
1X 15454 NEBS3 Chassis
1X 15454-FTA
2X 15454-DS3XM-6
2X
Hi Oli,
I am surprised to see 'redistribute static' appear in the config.
yes, this is expected, it's been like this for as long as I recall
Alrighty. Thanks for clarifying.
Christian
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Ok...I have one IGS running smoothly for 16 years:
IGS-BX Software, Version 8.3(0.15), ROUTER SOFTWARE
Copyright (c) 1986-1991 by cisco Systems, Inc.
Compiled Wed 14-Aug-91 15:25 by mlb
System Bootstrap, Version 4.3(0.6), ROUTER SOFTWARE
igs uptime is 16 years, 8 weeks, 5 days, 10 hours, 28
You win.
-Original Message-
From: Leonardo Gama Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:52:45
To:Howard Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED], cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] RES: Router uptime, can you beat it?
Ok...I have one IGS running smoothly for 16 years:
IGS-BX
On 1/31/08, Church, Charles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No offense, but can we kill this thread?
Yeah, besides half of the people here think that at lot of these
uptimes are faked and the other half are searching their bugtraq
archives for exploits to break into your network.
Jeff
No offense, but can we kill this thread?
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:03 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] RES: Router uptime, can you beat it?
You win.
Would you really trust dual sups in the Nexus any more than you can
trust dual sups in a 6500? You're not required to buy 2 chassis with
the 6500, that would be a personal or design choice.
--
Tom Sands
Yes, if it is based on the MDS.
On Jan 31, 2008 12:08 PM, Tom Sands [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you really trust dual sups in the Nexus any more than you can
trust dual sups in a 6500? You're not required to buy 2 chassis with
the 6500, that would be a personal or design choice.
Anyone else seeing issues to google - 64.233.167.99?
Trying to hit this google site and getting 50% loss, random drop offs..
Anyone know of something?
=
Dean Perrine
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On Jan 31, 2008 1:44 PM, Dean Perrine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone else seeing issues to google - 64.233.167.99?
Trying to hit this google site and getting 50% loss, random drop offs..
Anyone know of something?
=
Dean Perrine
___
I know that we are seeing 30% - 50% packet loss to that IP but the other 2
in DNS are fine.
Troy Beisigl
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Perrine
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:44 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject:
It is my consistent impression that this is the result of Google
rate-limiting ICMP traffic + lots of people pinging them due to their
canonical ubiquity (in fact, the latter is likely a cause of the former),
and isn't an accurate reflection of actual packet loss / throughput, etc.
Both ping
I'll wait and see (we already placed our order for 6509s and VS-S720s.)
Interesting to see Cisco going back to separate fabrics and dual
supervisors with ISSU. No mention of VSS after they've been talking
it up recently. Nice if they can make it all work reliably.
Tim:
On Jan 31, 2008 3:08 PM,
No latency here but we're peered:
3 core1-rtr-mb-ge4-0.nexicom.net (216.168.98.150) 0.153 ms 0.153 ms
0.144 ms
4 gw-google.torontointernetxchange.net (198.32.245.6) 1.901 ms 1.897 ms
1.942 ms
5 66.249.94.79 (66.249.94.79) 2.285 ms 2.278 ms 66.249.94.75
(66.249.94.75) 2.198 ms
6
Does anyone know if the RSP720-3CXL-10GE is shipping yet? If not is
there an ETA?
Thanks
Justin
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 03:04:58PM -0500, Deepak Jain wrote:
Whether its for IXP use, or whatever... a 6500 or 7600 do really well
with lots of and lots, and lots, and lots of low latency ethernet
devices connected to them and 10Gb/s of thruput is nothing. If you plan
to run your links
Point was that the 6500 supports dual sups, probably just as reliably,
so there isn't an added cost of needing 2 6500 chassis.
--
Tom Sands
Chief Network Engineer
I have a couple of internal groups that need some level of private
connectivity within our network, and I'm looking at some high level
input about the various options.
We currently have an MPLS network between most sites, with IPSEC
connectivity for a few minor sites as well as backup for all
everything fine for me from direct peering
and through comcastlevel3
On Jan 31, 2008 5:01 PM, Alex Balashov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is my consistent impression that this is the result of Google
rate-limiting ICMP traffic + lots of people pinging them due to their
canonical ubiquity (in
Hi Josh,
On 2/1/08, Higham, Josh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a couple of internal groups that need some level of private
connectivity within our network, and I'm looking at some high level
input about the various options.
[...]
I don't know how much heart surgery you'd need to perform on
Yes, you have extreme reliability that is comes from San-os, but even
with the MDS you always go with an A and B fabric.
This chassis is basically a core replacement, and an answer to the 10Gig
aggregation problems that are starting to pop up with blade centers and
high end vmware installations.
Noticed that 12.2(44)SE was recently released for the Cat3550 switch, and
feature navigator lists a whole load of IPv6 support. Yay!
However, it doesn't seem to work very well...
interface Loopback0
no ip address
ipv6 address 2001:4B10::100/128
ipv6 enable
end
lab-sw.rbsov#ping
Being developed from SAN-OS or an MDS still doesn't make it either.
Similar reliability might be there, but I wouldn't be convinced until
there is some proof it provides a that level of stability and ability.
With a 4:1 over subscription on the card I saw, I don't know that it
would be my
Noticed that 12.2(44)SE was recently released for the Cat3550 switch, and
feature navigator lists a whole load of IPv6 support. Yay!
However, it doesn't seem to work very well...
interface Loopback0
no ip address
ipv6 address 2001:4B10::100/128
ipv6 enable
end
lab-sw.rbsov#ping
well, if you can get to your edge routers, then you can get really
far ;)
IP man, its the wave of the future
--
Colin McNamara
(858)208-8105
CCIE #18233,RHCE,GCIH
http://www.colinmcnamara.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/colinmcnamara
The difficult we do immediately, the impossible just
Check ipv6 unicast-routing on global config
a. rahman isnaini r.sutan
Simon Lockhart wrote:
Noticed that 12.2(44)SE was recently released for the Cat3550 switch, and
feature navigator lists a whole load of IPv6 support. Yay!
However, it doesn't seem to work very well...
interface
Hi Guys,
Ive got a problem that I am hoping someone can have a look at. I currently
have four 3750's. Two belonging to one business unit and two belonging to
another. Each group of switches is running a separate VTP domain / VLAN
database.
I am running PVST however when I connect the final
Yes I probably disconnected it before this as the cpu went crazy @ like 90%.
Thanks for your suggestions.
Cheers,
Aaron.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Steele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 2:31 PM
To: Aaron R
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re:
No worries, also you can disregard my suggestion about load balancing
your 2 vlans, as I just realised after I sent it we are only talking
about a single VLAN here, note to self to stop multitasking! :)
Ben
On 01/02/2008, at 4:08 PM, Aaron R wrote:
Yes I probably disconnected it before
On (2008-02-01 00:54 +), Simon Lockhart wrote:
Noticed that 12.2(44)SE was recently released for the Cat3550 switch, and
feature navigator lists a whole load of IPv6 support. Yay!
It works unidirectionally, it can send IPv6 packets, but it can't
receive them.
I have no clue if the hardware
50 matches
Mail list logo
