Hi,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:46:56AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
One possible solution would be to have a knob that tells IOS delay bringing
up eBGP sessions and/or announcement of routes on eBGP sessions for n
seconds after initial BGP startup. This would make sure that iBGP has
converged
Normally, hardware-forwarding boxes should never show significant CPU
load.
With the exception of the old 3500XL series using 50% or more of the
CPU to drive the front panel LEDs :-)
(Yes, I know, EoL years ago...)
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:10:25AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
bgp update-delay n
the bgp update-delay command is used to tune the maximum time the
software will wait after the first neighbor is established until it
starts calculating best paths and sending out advertisements.
Now, what
probably Cisco needs a knob very similar to vendor Juniper out-delay. you
can delay the time between when BGP and the routing table exchange route
information.
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos73/swconfig73-routing/html/bgp-config58.html#1016387
Regards,
Masood
On Mon, Nov
Hi all,
The situation is due to the fact that the upstream solution
architecture is not symetric + the fact that BGP is not designed for
milisecond convergence.
Hence are my silly ideas in the order they appear in memory:
1. One of the solutions would be to make the architecture symetric -
make
HI Ilya,
Not sure where you pricing came from but this is in GPL:
RSP720-3CXL-GE= Cisco 7600 Route Switch Processor 720Gbps
fabric,PFC3CXL, GE B $40,000
WS-F6700-DFC3BXLCatalyst 6500 Dist Fwd Card- 3BXL, for WS-X67xx B
$15,000
vs.
WS-F6700-DFC3CXLCatalyst 6500
Hi,
I would approach this the indirect way - try shuffling the switches
around to see which combinations work which not. This is the
universal engineer approach :)
-pavel skovajsa
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Daniele Orlandi dani...@orlandi.com wrote:
On Sunday 22 November 2009 18:28:07
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:31:42AM +0100, Pavel Skovajsa wrote:
The situation is due to the fact that the upstream solution
architecture is not symetric + the fact that BGP is not designed for
milisecond convergence.
Indeed. But actually you don't need millisecond convergence here, if
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 08:28:24PM -, Matthew Melbourne wrote:
What is the general recommendation regarding enabling flow control on
Ethernet interfaces. Is it a legacy issue when devices had smaller buffers,
or is it still required for specific applications? We are having issues with
an
Hey all,
Ran across this by accident on a 871 running 12.4(24)T2:
DE-Atlanta(config)#ntp server ?
A.B.C.D IP address of peer
WORDHostname of peer
X:X:X:X::X IPv6 address of peer
ip Use IP for DNS resolution
ipv6Use IPv6 for DNS resolution
vrf
Bad cable... It happens.
--
Randy
-- Original Message ---
From: Juuso Lehtinen juuso.lehti...@gmail.com
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:16:47 +0200
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Ethernet autonegotiation issue between Cat3560 and Cat2960
I replaced the cable
Hi all,
I am planning to implement Secondary VLANs feature on a Metro ETTH
based on ME3400+76k. I have read various docs about the best I found
is on http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/07/14/private-vlans-revisited/
I have couple questions/scenarios I want to doublecheck with you:
1.
Hello all,
I'm writing in to ask this. I know that you can run a sho cable modem
(ip of modem) to look at a specific modem on a Cisco. What I'm looking
for is a way to show a modem based off of the cpe ip/mac behind it. I
know that older 3com and Terayon Bluewaves had this option in their
Hey,
Just do a show cable modem cpe_ip. It works on ubr72xxvxr and ubr10k.
--Original Message--
From: D.J. O'Berry
Sender: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
To: 'Cisco-nsp'
ReplyTo: dobe...@zcorum.com
Subject: [c-nsp] Identifying the modem based off of cpe ip
Sent: Nov 23, 2009 17:04
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:41:58AM -0500, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
The answer is very simple: if someone thinks that ethernet flow
control is the answer, the burden of proof is on them to answer
difficult questions about what the actual problem is, what flow
control is going to solve, and
Hey all,
Ran across this by accident on a 871 running 12.4(24)T2:
DE-Atlanta(config)#ntp server ip ?
WORD Hostname of peer
DE-Atlanta(config)#ntp server ip pool.ntp.org ?
burstSend a burst when peer is reachable
iburst Send a burst when peer is unreachable
key
Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:41:58AM -0500, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
The answer is very simple: if someone thinks that ethernet flow
control is the answer, the burden of proof is on them to answer
difficult questions about what the actual problem is, what flow
control is
Thanks.
Never seen that in the command list of options, so never thought Cisco
could do it.
flo...@futurefreedom.ro wrote:
Hey,
Just do a show cable modem cpe_ip. It works on ubr72xxvxr and ubr10k.
--Original Message--
From: D.J. O'Berry
Sender: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
Before start to think how I could do that...
Is there anyone here with a TCL script to check if an ACL is empty so it
is detroying the PBR sequence?
Regards.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 04:05:16PM +, Phil Mayers wrote:
So indeed, flow control is not a panacea. I agree with this :-)
An interesting wrinkle (to some) is that stock flow control is not QoS
(i.e. 802.1p codepoint) aware - it's all-or-nothing, meaning your
low-bandwidth
Hey Group,
Has anyone recently been seeing unusual/extended delivery dates being provided
on Cisco ASR1000 series or Catalyst 4500 gear? We've had some sizable orders in
place since July and we keep getting the ship date extended out each time it
approaches. Currently, shipping estimates are
Hi Jeremy,
Yes, we have experienced some delays. This is something you will have to take
up with your Cisco account team.
Best regards,
Charlie G
Charlie Greenaway - CCIE#11226 (Security/RS)
Solutions Architect | BT iNet | Tel: +44 (0)1993 885897
Email: charlie.greena...@btinet.bt.com |
We've seen delays as well. I know some of the used hardware providers are
having a spike in business because Cisco isn't able to fill some orders in a
decent time period.
- Original Message -
From: Charlie Greenaway charlie.greena...@btinet.bt.com
To: jer...@mojohost.com
Cc:
We have seen the same type of delays. Make enough noise and assuming
you are important enough it may help you.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Jeremy Reid jer...@mojohost.com wrote:
Hey Group,
Has anyone recently been seeing unusual/extended delivery dates being
provided on Cisco ASR1000
Gert Doering wrote:
An interesting wrinkle (to some) is that stock flow control is not QoS
(i.e. 802.1p codepoint) aware - it's all-or-nothing, meaning your
low-bandwidth diffserv/EF flow gets paused as well as your less-then
best-effort 999.9mbit/sec FTP transfer :o(
There's a flow control
try debug ip cef drops verify and debug ip cef drops
suppressed-verify so you can see what is going on inside the router
with urpf
El vie, 20-11-2009 a las 06:12 -0800, Mike escribió:
above static route should be enough to tell 'ip verify' to
allow x.x.74.0/29 as a source on this interface.
Team,
What Cisco IOS version is capable of running IPv6 NAT-PT and
creating IPv6 ACLs on a 7204 VXR? So far I've tried both of the
following but neither support but functions. Thanks again for your time.
ADVANCED ENTERPRISE SERVICES
c7200-adventerprisek9-mz.124-24.T1.bin
Release Date:
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Phil Mayers
Sent: lunedì 23 novembre 2009 17.05
To: Gert Doering
Cc: Matthew Melbourne; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net; Ross Vandegrift
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Flow Control and
The Catalyst 4500 supports 3000 logical instances with the SupV from
what I was able to find. With MST, the capacity is further increased:
MST logical instances = access ports + ( trunk ports * MST instances)
John Wilkes wrote:
What are the limits for spanning tree on Cisco 4500? I'm
Similar to Gert's question on on delayed eBGP startup, is there a good way
to delay IGP default-route generation?
Since our DFZ routers have a 0/0 nailed down to Null0, OSPF begins
generating the default right away, irrespective of BGP state (namely
before the router is actually prepared to
The answer is very simple: if someone thinks that ethernet flow
control is the answer, the burden of proof is on them to answer
difficult questions about what the actual problem is, what flow
control is going to solve, and why they think that it won't cause more
problems than its worth. At
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:29:24AM -0800, Kevin Graham wrote:
Similar to Gert's question on on delayed eBGP startup, is there a good way
to delay IGP default-route generation?
router isis
set-overload-bit on-startup wait-for-bgp
router ospf
max-metric router-lsa on-startup wait-for-bgp
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 07:57:19PM +, Jeff Aitken wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:29:24AM -0800, Kevin Graham wrote:
Similar to Gert's question on on delayed eBGP startup, is there a good way
to delay IGP default-route generation?
router isis
set-overload-bit on-startup
Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:
I think the config doesn't honor TTL, so the implementation is rather
basic..
Would that be basic as in it only resolves the FQDN once when the config
is entered, once per boot, or possibly on a schedule later on in the
lifecycle of the router?
I noticed
On Nov 23, 2009, at 3:19 PM, Justin Shore wrote:
I noticed other changes between 24T1 and 24T2 that bit me this weekend when I
upgraded 2 routers that are my NTP servers. First off all the NTP config
that was moved way up in the config in an earlier release suddenly got moved
back to
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:40:17AM -0800, Kevin Graham wrote:
Short of host-side implementation details such as one slow MSI-X queue
starving others, isn't this providing exactly the congestion feedback
that would be expected (queue-on-congestion, drop when queue
exceeded)?
so you have
I am building out a new datacenter. The edge is going to consist of 2 routers.
Each device has a 10G interface connected to a different provider with a 1-2G
commit. I think comparing price and throughput, I be better off using
7606/RSP720-3CXL/WS-X6708-10GE vs ASR1004 with 10G-SRs(that cisco
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:10:25AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
bgp update-delay n
[..]
Will test, and report.
Well, the default indeed *is* 120 (if set to 120, it won't show up in
the running-config, if set to 121 or 119, it will) - and it doesn't
seem to do what I had hoped for.
That
so you have one ingress port (the NAS), 20 egress ports (the clients).
Egress port 1 fills up.
What are you going to do? Flow-control (- slow down 19 other ports)
or drop?
Agreed, egress queuing and flowcontrol send seems logically flawed, but
the NAS case I see cited is flowcontrol
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:29:24AM -0800, Kevin Graham wrote:
Similar to Gert's question on on delayed eBGP startup, is there a good way
to delay IGP default-route generation?
I'm not sure if it helps for the default-route case, but you could try
max-metric router-lsa on-startup 300
router ospf
max-metric router-lsa on-startup wait-for-bgp
[...]
not only do you not want to generate a default route during initial BGP
convergence, you don't even want to be in the path (to a valid BGP NH) during
that period, for the same reasons.
Yep, looks like that's it, thanks!
Hi Gert,
On 23/11/2009, at 5:46 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
both ISP-Routers announce the ISP's aggregate (let's call it 200.1.0.0/16)
to their respective upstream providers (static route to null0, network
statement). This needs to be done, to make sure that the aggregate is
always visible,
On 24/11/2009, at 3:50 AM, Brian Turnbow wrote:
The nexus family does PFC (no it's not a card, they reused the acronym)
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9670/white_paper_c11-542809.html
Basically enables sending a pause per class.
They did it for FCOE and it is
On 23/11/2009 21:28, Gert Doering wrote:
What are you going to do? Flow-control (- slow down 19 other ports)
or drop?
The answer to this depends on the application. If you're running regular
IP then yes, drop a few packets. No-one will care too much.
FCoE is a different matter and
Hi Gert,
just an idea. I have not tried this and it may also not fit your
application... this is on sup2's (SXF17)
in my tiny network I have several route reflectors which handle only
my customer assignements. nice and small for ibgp convergence.
the idea is that the border routers peer with
On Tuesday 24 November 2009 05:20:17 am loui leaky wrote:
I read through the archives of the list and people have
some strong opinions against the 7606, especially
regarding netflow exports, but maybe that was related to
SUP720 issues. I don not plan to offer and services at
the edge of
Hi,
I have two 2821 routers with policy-based firewall configured on them.
There's IPSec GRE tunnel configured between the routers.
The problem is traffic can't pass through the tunnel (even though the tunnel
is established). Here is message from the logs:
===
Nov 23 17:36:43
On Tuesday 24 November 2009 04:36:58 am Jared Mauch wrote:
Cisco does not have a coherent config order that will be
output.
Like when we moved from SRC3 to SRC5 earlier this month, RANCID
reported minor but strange changes to the configuration order,
e.g., the 'police' command under a
On Tuesday 24 November 2009 06:25:45 am David Hughes wrote:
So you are generating the aggregate at the border? That
can certainly leave you black holing traffic under
several scenarios (anything that isolates that router).
Have you thought about generating the aggregate within
your
Jared Mauch wrote:
On Nov 23, 2009, at 3:19 PM, Justin Shore wrote:
I noticed other changes between 24T1 and 24T2 that bit me this weekend when I upgraded 2
routers that are my NTP servers. First off all the NTP config that was moved way up in the
config in an earlier release suddenly got
Mark Tinka wrote:
Like when we moved from SRC3 to SRC5 earlier this month, RANCID
reported minor but strange changes to the configuration order,
e.g., the 'police' command under a policy-map has been given one
extra TAB indent. This looks very weird if you also have a 'set
mpls experimental'
Jeremy Reid wrote:
Hey Group,
Has anyone recently been seeing unusual/extended delivery dates being provided
on Cisco ASR1000 series or Catalyst 4500 gear? We've had some sizable orders in
place since July and we keep getting the ship date extended out each time it
approaches. Currently,
Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:
I think the config doesn't honor TTL, so the implementation is
rather
basic..
Would that be basic as in it only resolves the FQDN once when the
config
is entered, once per boot, or possibly on a schedule later on in the
lifecycle of the router?
the name
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 08:25:45AM +1000, David Hughes wrote:
both ISP-Routers announce the ISP's aggregate (let's call it 200.1.0.0/16)
to their respective upstream providers (static route to null0, network
statement). This needs to be done, to make sure that the aggregate is
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 07:03:07PM -0500, Bill Desjardins wrote:
just an idea. I have not tried this and it may also not fit your
application... this is on sup2's (SXF17)
in my tiny network I have several route reflectors which handle only
my customer assignements. nice and small for
Since googling yielded nothing, here goes one for the archives.
If a Cisco 12000 PRP-1 displays 022A (and is otherwise dead) the cause of
the problem is the small 6mm fuse near the backplane has triggered, and
you either have to RMA the PRP-1 or replace the fuse.
Fuse called SMD 4A 451004
56 matches
Mail list logo
