Sebastian Ganschow wrote on Friday, June 12, 2009 11:55:
Hi,
we've got our ciscos configured that ip pool configuration is derived
from our radius servers.
In order to change the ip pool, I change the pool in the radius
config. But our ciscos are still using the old ip pool. It seems
Victor,
Try taking a look here:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst4500/12.2/52sg/conf
iguration/guide/sw_int.html#wp1110617
Arie
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of victor
Sent: Wednesday,
Just additional Info
Here's what my Cisco Technical sayed last time i looked at it...
You can not point the next-hop to the local routers interface.
Development does not plan on supporting this configuration.
Looks bad - I did it with a golden Cable - Physcal crossover loop...
Like I said there is nothing like interface FastEthernet1 in the
running-config
Maybe I need to enable it somewhere?
When I plug in a patch-cord the link ON THE OTHER SIDE goes up but the
light beneath mgt port doesn't light up.
BTW, sho int doesn't list Fe1 as a possible option.
On Wed, 17
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:54:03AM +0400, victor wrote:
Like I said there is nothing like interface FastEthernet1 in the
running-config
Maybe I need to enable it somewhere?
When I plug in a patch-cord the link ON THE OTHER SIDE goes up but the
light beneath mgt port doesn't light up.
BTW,
From
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/metro/me4924-10ge/hardware/installation/guide/HIGOVEW.html#wp1161221
Management Port
The management port is used (in ROMMON mode only) to recover a switch
software image that has been corrupted or destroyed due to a network
catastrophe. This port is
Tim Durack wrote:
Amen to that.
I've played around with the various loopback strategies, including
using a gre tunnel that originates/terminates on the same PE. It
worked, but didn't seem like a scalable solution.
A dot1q trunk between two ports (if your not using a switch platform as
Hmm, it's been a while since I dealt with that sort of stuff, and
there
is an AVP (cisco-avpair = ip:pool-timeout=minutes) you can (and
should) send along with the pool definition. I fear the default is no
timeout, and I'm not aware how to manually clear this. Maybe you can
try no ip local
Sebastian Ganschow mailto:s.gansc...@buelow-masiak.de wrote on
Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:49:
Hmm, it's been a while since I dealt with that sort of stuff, and
there is an AVP (cisco-avpair = ip:pool-timeout=minutes) you can
(and should) send along with the pool definition. I fear the default
hmm, where is this documented? If I recall correctly, the router tries
to fetch the pool from Radius when a user logs in whose authorization
information reference this pool and the pool is not yet defined (or
has
expired when you sent ip:pool-timeout along with the pool)
We had no timeout
It would be great to have a simple global-vrf route exchange feature
though.
Anyone using a vrf for their global tables?? This solution could possibly
work for me but not sure what insane issues would come up by doing this.
___
cisco-nsp mailing
I am definitely aware of IP SLA and also agree that it is very useful,
however, this customer's network is Juniper so I will be
unable to uitlize that feature.
MTR looks like it is doable, however, it uses icmp. I doubt that you can get
an accurate picture of the network using
icmp, can it be
Clue Store wrote:
Anyone using a vrf for their global tables?? This solution could possibly
work for me but not sure what insane issues would come up by doing this.
After trying several other approaches and failing, if you can't beat
them, join them...
We use the global table only for
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of harbor235
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:58 AM
To: Matthew Huff
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Network Perefromance
I am definitely aware of
We have a 6509 sup2/msfc2 switch which only does layer2 services - is there
10GE options available for this platform?
The WS-X6708-10G-3CXL blades are also of interest for Sup720 platform - if
they are only doing VLAN trunks out to remote switches and any routing would
be done on SVI
The NPE-G2 fact states:
Q. Are routing protocols supported on the 10/100BASE-T management
interface?
A. Yes, routing protocols are supported on the management interface.
However, the management interface is strictly for management purposes
only, with limited packet forwarding.
We use
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:05:33PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
We have a 6509 sup2/msfc2 switch which only does layer2 services - is there
10GE options available for this platform?
None of the WS-X67xx boards will work with a Sup2 (they need Sup720
fabric connections).
I seem to remember
At 10:29 AM 6/17/2009, Gert Doering blurted out:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:05:33PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
We have a 6509 sup2/msfc2 switch which only does layer2 services - is there
10GE options available for this platform?
None of the WS-X67xx boards will work with a Sup2 (they
Thanks folks.. I figured the 720 upgrade would come along as part of
this..;)
Cheers,
Paul
From: Tim Stevenson [mailto:tstev...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:51 PM
To: Gert Doering; Paul Stewart
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 10GE blade questions
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 07:29:09PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
I seem to remember that there was an earlier 10G blade (something like
1 ports, no XENPAKs), but can't find any details about it - the
board name was WS-X6502-10GE, and even that one would require a fabric
board for your Sup2
Hello guys,
I have following scenario:
I receive a packet in ATM0/0 interface. The packet has the following
addresses: SRC A.A.A.A and DST B.B.B.B.
I must translate the packet and send it out the *same* interface
(ATM0/0), *but* with the following addresses: SRC X.X.X.X DST Y.Y.Y.Y
What NAT
Hi,
Yes, everything - including internet table, only infrastructure runs
in the global one. As many have noticed the pain of getting anything
going between the global table and the vrfs is just too much. All I
miss now is ability to do a static route from vrf to another vrf ;-)
but for now vrf
What does your routing look like to get it in/out the same ATM interface?
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 04:55:04PM -0300, c0re dumped wrote:
Hello guys,
I have following scenario:
I receive a packet in ATM0/0 interface. The packet has the following
addresses: SRC A.A.A.A and DST B.B.B.B.
I
On Jun 15, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Kevin Graham wrote:
Given the 192 ports of 10/100/1000, presumably this is aggregating
customers,
in which case it'd be best to roll these up on 7600/RSP720 (along
with their
associated BGP, since most of them would probably be suitable for
peer-groups).
uRPF
Hi,
I have the need to introduce some PBR to solve a hopefully temporary
problem. Some of the traffic being routed will leave the same interface
as it arrives on.
My worry is if this would have any performance impact the traffic
arrives on and leaves from the same interface. I could imagine that
We don't have core and edge -- our switches do both. Every port on
the switch is either a BGP peer/uplink/downlink or a
customer. Every port layer3-routed with only a few handfuls
of customers with dual links.
Purchasing a switch to be the edge and then another to handle
BGP
On Jun 18, 2009, at 6:59 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
I'd prefer something that can handle both edge and core duties.
GSR w/E3 or E5 LCs, CRS-1, or ASR 1K.
---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com
I'm scratching my head on a BGP problem. I have a pair of core routers
and a pair of distribution routers in our data center. The DC routers
each have a single connection to the core routers (1 connection per
pair). Previously the DC routers were configured as route-reflector
clients with a
Justin Shore wrote:
Core:
!
address-family vpnv4
neighbor ibgp-peer send-community extended
neighbor 10.64.0.34 activate
exit-address-family
I added the last activate for grins but it didn't help. peer-groups are
auto-activated which is why it's not explicitly spelled out in the
29 matches
Mail list logo
