On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:05 PM, David Coulson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not make your life easy and just run BGP between them?
Just to clarify, these are not routed over to the Internet
links...both of the circuits between Hub and site A and Hub and site B
are straight layer 2 connections
Nick Voth wrote:
[Deleted]
SO, is there any way to accomplish T1 bonding with that existing DS3
card or am I just stuck?
Nick,
Is there any specific reason why you need MLPPP? How about just
using per-packet load balancing? We do that on our PA-MC-T3 via the
following:
Hi all,
The problem was dns server, the network range of laptop was new.
I included this network in allow-recursion and now all works.
After few tests my laptop again dont' work (i'm going crazy :) )
and again windows works fine :)
linux:
mii-tool: eth0: link ok
on cisco switch i see, that
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Nick Voth wrote:
Thanks very much David. That definitely helps. Yes, our 2 T's are on the
same path to the destination so it looks like per-packet would be best in
that case. However, with per-packet can you utilize the full speed of the
2 T's as if they were bonded like
Actually, CEF per-packet usually gives more throughput than MLPPP as
there is less overhead. You ran run the Ts in the group as HDLC, rather
than PPP.
david raistrick wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Nick Voth wrote:
Thanks very much David. That definitely helps. Yes, our 2 T's are on the
However, with per-packet can you utilize the full speed
of the
2 T's as if they were bonded like in MLPPP? That's the ultimate goal
here.
Memory says yes you get the full speed of 3Mb available with per-
packet.
It has been 8 years since I last used it, but I'm sure someone can back
up
I just enabled wake on LAN in windows network driver and now linux works.
Now this dhcp server works fine; and there is no need of any acl rules
in asa.
Only dhcprelay configuration on interfaces.
I have started secondary dhcp server;
In cisco asa i defined this second dhcp server;
When there
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Nick Voth wrote:
I have a 7206 VXR with a PA-MC-T3 card in it for doing T1's off of a
channelized DS3. I know the PA-MC-T3 doesn't support MLPPP bonding of
multiple T1's. The problem is, my NPE doesn't support the newer PA-MC-T3-EC
enhanced card that works for T1 bonding.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, david raistrick wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Nick Voth wrote:
Thanks very much David. That definitely helps. Yes, our 2 T's are on the
same path to the destination so it looks like per-packet would be best in
that case. However, with per-packet can you utilize the full
Can you not just summarise the redundant routes at each site with
static's over the wireless link with a higher AD and redistribute
those static's into OSPF?
On 15/03/2008, at 1:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a client with a network that's got a main hub site and two
'remote'
Thanks very much David. That definitely helps. Yes, our 2 T's are on the
same path to the destination so it looks like per-packet would be best in
that case. However, with per-packet can you utilize the full speed of the
2 T's as if they were bonded like in MLPPP? That's the ultimate goal
Nick Voth wrote:
Thanks again guys. It seems that the consensus from all that I've read and
the replies that I've gotten is that using CEF with per-packet is a great,
low overhead way to do it, BUT with sensitive applications like VoIP, MLPPP
will keep your packets in order better. I'll
Actually I can vouch for per-packet working fine for sensitive
applications like VoIP as long as your bonded lines are basically
parallel in the sense they are the same technology over the same
distance with the same characteristics, ie multiple T1 lines through
the same carrier to the
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, David Coulson wrote:
Actually, last time I tried to run MLPPP for VoIP I had more problems than if
I just used CEF per-packet. I had fragmentation disabled, so I really have no
idea what I was doing wrong.
On older IOS, MLPPP doesn't support CEF switching of tagged
Hi -
On Mar 12, 2008, at 3:30 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
Personally, I think there is no way besides do not code security
holes
to make everybody happy - and I'm fine with the proposed schema.
Provided
the mechanism knowledge appears in the wild - immediate release
works.
FWIW, we
Nick,
I know that we mostly run multiple T1 links to customers over separate
carriers for redundancy, thereby breaking the cef per-packet load-sharing
for VoIP. If all your links will be over the same carrier and the same
CT3, you should be okay. Also, your Adtran units running AOS 10 and up
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:31:22PM -0400, Jason Berenson wrote:
We have 3 7206's used as edge routers. PA-MC-T3 in from our DAX and
ethernet out to our transport. So there are a few adjacencies along
with iBGP and eBGP. It seems like the router that goes down (flaps
OSPF/BGP instance 1)
On Mar 14, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
Nanog may be a better place to take this than cisco-nsp.
A pointer I kicked there:
http://tinyurl.com/2nqg2a
-danny
Begin forwarded message:
From: Danny McPherson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: March 15, 2008 2:06:53 PM MDT
To: Felix Bako [EMAIL
We have some devices with management IPs in the 10.1.0.0/16 range that I
manage and I needed to split up into two groups. All the devices were
statically assigned an IP address in the form of 10.1.3.x/255.255.0.0, so I
added two more secondaries for router interface fa0.5: 10.1.3.1/24 and
19 matches
Mail list logo
