[c-nsp] multilink doc

Hi , Please help me with any doc which states about multilink regarding MULTILINK SHOULD NOT have its L2 links from diffrent service providers or with diffrent delay but bandwidth of links is same in my case. We are having some issues of slowness while accessing citrix application across

Re: [c-nsp] multilink doc

jack daniels wrote: Hi , Please help me with any doc which states about multilink regarding MULTILINK SHOULD NOT have its L2 links from diffrent service providers or with diffrent delay but bandwidth of links is same in my case. We are having some issues of slowness while accessing citrix

[c-nsp] Recommendations for IOS 12.4T for 7206VXR NPE-G2

Any recommendation? Technologies used: BGP, EIGRP.VRF, RACL, ACL, uRPF, AAA, GRE. EtherChannel ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at

[c-nsp] Cisco 3750 Stack less disruptive EtherChannel configuration

Hi, We had a problem with a stack 3750 here and the configuration is.. Stack (2x3750) === FEC === SW 2960 It is a cross etherchannel configuration. 3750 is not working with L3 mode at all. The FEC config is mode on. So, one the 3750 had a problem yesterday and it creates disruption in the

Re: [c-nsp] Recommendations for IOS 12.4T for 7206VXR NPE-G2

I'd suggest you have two choices: 1. Jump straight to 15.0 mainline rather than run 12.4T. You can of course go to 12.4T but as 15.0(1) mainline superseeds and includes bug fixes from 12.4(24)T it will be the new stable train going forward. You could say that 15.0(1) is not that well tested,

[c-nsp] vrf-lite over a layer3 link

Hi all This is my first post to this list, so I guess I should say hello ;-) We are considering an advanced network design which allows us to separate several services or customers using vrf-lite. There are some local sites which are connected by our own cabling. Nevertheless there are also some

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 3750 Stack less disruptive EtherChannel configuration

Might want to consider LACP for better fault detection. Sent from handheld. On Oct 6, 2009, at 6:18 AM, luismi asturlui...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, We had a problem with a stack 3750 here and the configuration is.. Stack (2x3750) === FEC === SW 2960 It is a cross etherchannel configuration.

Re: [c-nsp] vrf-lite over a layer3 link

Hello. This is my first post to this list, so I guess I should say hello ;-) We are considering an advanced network design which allows us to separate several services or customers using vrf-lite. There are some local sites which are connected by our own cabling. Nevertheless there are also

Re: [c-nsp] vrf-lite over a layer3 link

Stefan Juon wrote: I understand that vrf-lite uses vlan's to separate the customers between ce and pe, I have seen these in all the examples I already read. As supposely no provider supports vlan's but rather layer 3 lines the big question is: How to span a network using vrf-lite over a

Re: [c-nsp] vrf-lite over a layer3 link

If you don't have overlapping subnets and are brave, you could try vrf source-select or vrf pbr , with global next hops (since both of these techniques create a half-duplex vrf situation), this avoids the mess of tunnels and their packet overheads, but introduces another mess (and potentially

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 3750 Stack less disruptive EtherChannel configuration

luismi asturlui...@gmail.com wrote: We had a problem with a stack 3750 here and the configuration is.. Stack (2x3750) === FEC === SW 2960 It is a cross etherchannel configuration. 3750 is not working with L3 mode at all. The FEC config is mode on. We use 'active' as then it is using

Re: [c-nsp] Will UDLD work with converters ?

Nick Hilliard wrote: On 02/10/2009 15:24, Zoe O'Connell wrote: It's worth noting that while the restriction on optics in general is just annoying, the DOM restrictions do seem to be there for a reason: I have a number of non-Cisco optics reporting DOM data that's obviously incorrect, so I don't

Re: [c-nsp] Will UDLD work with converters ?

Mark Tinka wrote: On Friday 02 October 2009 10:27:37 pm Justin Shore wrote: It seems to me that there should be a standards body within Cisco that should mandate certain minimum requirements of all product lines. If and when there is the ability for BUs and product lines to share common

[c-nsp] Problem encountered while securing NTP

Given the recent NTP PSIRT from Cisco (cisco-sa-20090923-ntp) I decided to spend the morning revisiting my NTP practices to lessen the chance of getting kicked in the teeth by this router-crashing bug later on. In my networks I usually have a pair (or more sometimes) of border routers as

Re: [c-nsp] Problem encountered while securing NTP

The problem I'm running into today is that the 'access-group peer' statements on the NTP servers are matching local clients with ACL 6 as well as configured stratum-1 peers (successfully matching the peers at that). The local clients should be matched with the 'access-group serve-only'