Re: [c-nsp] cisco 2801 and HWIC-2T

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 16:39, Ryan West rw...@zyedge.com wrote: The card is supported on your platform, but it's a T1 only card, so controller e1 or card type won't work for it. No it's not. All T (H)WICs are for serial interfaces, which is *not* the same as a T1/E1. To use this type of

Re: [c-nsp] cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 86, Issue 48

Hi, Thanks for your responses. A colleague of mine gave me this answer : aaa new-model aaa authentication login default group tacacs+ enable aaa authentication enable default group tacacs+ enable aaa authorization exec default group tacacs+ if-authenticated aaa authorization commands 15

Re: [c-nsp] cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 86, Issue 48

I have this and I have accounting: aaa authentication attempts login 2 aaa authentication login default group tac-plus local-case aaa authentication login console group tac-plus local-case aaa authentication enable default enable aaa authorization console aaa authorization exec default group

Re: [c-nsp] cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 86, Issue 48

Sorry for spamming, thanks for the information, I'll check out soon. Mehdi -Message d'origine- De : luismi [mailto:asturlui...@gmail.com] Envoyé : mardi 19 janvier 2010 11:55 À : Mehdi Badreddine Cc : cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Objet : Re: [c-nsp] cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 86, Issue 48 I

[c-nsp] cisco 6509 rommon mode

Hi, i am using cisco 6509 switch. This switch is not power ON for last one year, now after switch ON,It is going to ROMMON mode. The following is the log: Currently running ROMMON from S (Gold) region Boot image: bootflash:cat6000-sup2cvk9.8-3-2.bin Module 1 port ASIC 0 failed: Pinnacle Packet

[c-nsp] IP Packet Debug - FIB errors

Hello Just have a question regarding FIB errors during packet debugging: Jan 19 12:17:48 MEZ: IP: s=172.31.55.194 (Dialer3), d=172.31.55.192, len 60, input feature Jan 19 12:17:48 MEZ: UDP src=59668, dst=16000, Dialer i/f override(12), rtype 0, forus FALSE, sendself FALSE, mtu 0,

Re: [c-nsp] IP Packet Debug - FIB errors

On Jan 19, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Andre Schoppmeier wrote: Just have a question regarding FIB errors during packet debugging: FYI, IP packet debug is generally considered to be too dangerous for use on production boxes - it's a huge risk in terms of self-DoSing the router(s) in question.

Re: [c-nsp] IP Packet Debug - FIB errors

Hello Roland, I know that, we are testing to configure IP-SLA udp-jitter via SNMP with Infovista. But the ip sls statistic run into a timeout, so I did a debug ip packet with filter and the result was the output I send. If the packet could not be routed, because of the FIB error, that I will

Re: [c-nsp] IP Packet Debug - FIB errors

I dont think so, debug ip packet is ok if you use a very specific ACL, IMHO. I found very dangerous debug ip nat detailed, I saw 7200 down because of that command without too many nat :-P El mar, 19-01-2010 a las 12:24 +, Dobbins, Roland escribió: On Jan 19, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Andre

Re: [c-nsp] IP Packet Debug - FIB errors

On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:41 PM, luismi wrote: I dont think so, debug ip packet is ok if you use a very specific ACL, IMHO. I've seen even that send RP CPU to 100%, depending upon pps - YMMV, of course. --- Roland Dobbins

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS - CE to CE throughput [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Not nearly enough traffic. If you have reasonable-speed links, it's almost impossible to saturate them with low-end routers. We tried with several IOS-based options, including TTCP and had to fall back to embedded Linux-based solutions. Ivan Pepelnjak blog.ioshints.info / www.ioshints.info

Re: [c-nsp] ASA 7.2 Interim Releases

Basically because i have customers that want to be always up to date. Regards, Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP) amsoa...@netcabo.pt -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Tony Varriale Sent: terça-feira,

Re: [c-nsp] BGP - Announcing routes to Internet providers.

On Thursday 07 January 2010 10:09:20 pm David Freedman wrote: When you add MPLS into the mix (for internet routing, not just VPN) your border router becomes an LER and as such you can't take advantage of the core routers and have them MPLS only LSRs at the same time. One solution may be

Re: [c-nsp] PIX/ASA OID for show service-policy

Hi Antonio, The show service-policy output is not available via SNMP. Sorry, David. Antonio Soares wrote: Hello group, I'm trying to find the OID that gives us the same type of information we see in the show service-policy output: pixfirewall(config)# show service-policy Global

Re: [c-nsp] ASA 7.2 Interim Releases

Hi Antonio, 7.2(4.44) is the latest. But you need a TAC case to get it, and an associated bug that you are running into which would be resolved by running 7.2(4.44). Sincerely, David. Antonio Soares wrote: Hello group, I see that the latest 7.2 interim release available on CCO is

Re: [c-nsp] PIX/ASA OID for show service-policy

Thank you very much for this information. Regards, Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP) amsoa...@netcabo.pt -Original Message- From: David White, Jr. (dwhitejr) [mailto:dwhit...@cisco.com] Sent: terça-feira, 19 de Janeiro de 2010 18:22 To: Antonio Soares Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] ASA 7.2 Interim Releases

I know that 7.2.4(43) is a good release so for me getting the list of bugs corrected in 7.2.4(44) would be enough. Can you provide that information ? I know that i can open a TAC case but there a thing called Shared Support Metrics... :) Regards, Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP)

Re: [c-nsp] Hardware PBR on Sup720/PFC3BXL

Hi Robert, On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 13:14 +0100, Robert Hass wrote: I have to implement some Policy-Based Routing (PBR) route-map's on few Catalyst 6500. We currently using Sup720/PFC3BXL with IOS 12.2(33)SXH6, but we can migrate to SXI if it helps. Are below PBR route-map's are supported in

[c-nsp] ASA Failover without setting a Standby IP on an Interface

Hey Everyone, We're running a pair of ASAs on 8.2(1), and we only have one available IP in our external range, and we want to have 2 ASAs for redundancy. So I wanted to know what the possible ramifications are for not setting a standby IP for an interface. My understanding is that the

Re: [c-nsp] ASA Failover without setting a Standby IP on an Interface

Correct. Just for management. Jason -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Tom Lusty Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:04 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] ASA Failover without setting a

Re: [c-nsp] cisco 6509 rommon mode

Try to remove and reinstall all modules in a switch. On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:58 PM, ambedkar wrote: Hi, i am using cisco 6509 switch. This switch is not power ON for last one year, now after switch ON,It is going to ROMMON mode. The following is the log: Currently running ROMMON from S

[c-nsp] Router recommendation for load balancing setup

Hello, I'm looking for a router that can: - handle load-balancing on two 100Mbps links with minimal cpu impact - must have at least 4 ports, at least 2 of which should be GigE and the other two must support FE or GigE - BGP with 25,000 routes My budget is small (under $2,000) so I'm probably

Re: [c-nsp] ASA Failover without setting a Standby IP on an Interface

Hi Tom, If a standby IP is not assigned to the Outside interface, then that interface will not be able to participate in failover monitoring. Meaning, the two ASAs will not be able to exchange 'hellos' out that interface (as the Active unit will not have an IP to send the hello to on the

Re: [c-nsp] ASA 7.2 Interim Releases

Answered off-line. Sincerely, David. Antonio Soares wrote: I know that 7.2.4(43) is a good release so for me getting the list of bugs corrected in 7.2.4(44) would be enough. Can you provide that information ? I know that i can open a TAC case but there a thing called Shared Support

[c-nsp] Differences between 3750-E and 3560-E switches

Other than stackwise on the 3750-E, I haven't been able to discern a whole lot of differences between the two switches. Since the 3750-E is about 2 x the price of a similar 3560-E, I want to make sure I'm not missing anything. Does anyone know of any literature that compares the two? Anyone

Re: [c-nsp] cisco 6509 rommon mode

hi, rust, moisture, corrosion, dust? I'd have a good look at each module and component. alan ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at

Re: [c-nsp] Differences between 3750-E and 3560-E switches

On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 15:17 -0500, Matthew Huff wrote: Other than stackwise on the 3750-E, I haven't been able to discern a whole lot of differences between the two switches. Since the 3750-E is about 2 x the price of a similar 3560-E, I want to make sure I'm not missing anything. Does anyone

Re: [c-nsp] Differences between 3750-E and 3560-E switches

- Original Message - From: Peter Rathlev pe...@rathlev.dk To: Matthew Huff mh...@ox.com Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Differences between 3750-E and 3560-E switches On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 15:17 -0500, Matthew Huff wrote:

Re: [c-nsp] Differences between 3750-E and 3560-E switches

I also can't tell the difference. We've been using pairs of 3560E's as replacement for stacked pairs of 3750G's (non-E) and are very happy about that. They have almost the exact same specs according to the data sheets[0] apart from the stacking thing. And in my eyes it's wrong to pay for

[c-nsp] OSPFv3 as PE-CE protocol for 6VPE on IOS-XR ?

Hello! Is OSPFv3 supported as a PE-CE protocol for 6VPE on IOS-XR? The Cisco IOS-XR MPLS config guide only specifies BGP as the PE-CE protocol, and I haven't been able to configure a VRF under OSPFv3. thanks sridhar ___ cisco-nsp mailing list

Re: [c-nsp] OSPFv3 as PE-CE protocol for 6VPE on IOS-XR ?

Only BGP and Static are supported for 6VPE per Cisco. -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Sridhar Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:30 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] OSPFv3 as PE-CE protocol

Re: [c-nsp] Router recommendation for load balancing setup

If you reduce the number of BGP routes to 12000 your 3550-12T will handle two GigE uplinks with no CPU impact. Just use the correct SDM template. On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:30 PM, Hector Herrera wrote: Hello, I'm looking for a router that can: - handle load-balancing on two 100Mbps links

[c-nsp] Router recommendation for load balancing setup

Message: 2 Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:30:32 -0800 From: Hector Herrera mail...@pobox.com To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Router recommendation for load balancing setup Message-ID: c7ef7cf71001191130j57e02c75o4af5b004f4d29...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain;

Re: [c-nsp] Router recommendation for load balancing setup

On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:48 PM, Cyrill Malevanov wrote: If you reduce the number of BGP routes to 12000 your 3550-12T will handle two GigE uplinks with no CPU impact. Just use the correct SDM template. Seconded. I use 3550s in my network. 24k is the maximum unicast route table limit that

Re: [c-nsp] Hardware PBR on Sup720/PFC3BXL

I've not done VRF Select PBR myself, but it would appear that it was first integrated in 12.2(33)SXH1, so you could be running into a bug, or not totally following the implementation guide as it would appear that you need to give a next hop when using the set vrf [instance] term in the

Re: [c-nsp] ASA 7.2 Interim Releases

With engineering code that hasn't had 1 ounce of regression testing? tv - Original Message - From: Antonio Soares amsoa...@netcabo.pt To: 'Tony Varriale' tvarri...@comcast.net; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:28 AM Subject: RE: [c-nsp] ASA 7.2 Interim

Re: [c-nsp] Differences between 3750-E and 3560-E switches

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:17:26 -0500, you wrote: Other than stackwise on the 3750-E, I haven't been able to discern a whole lot of differences between the two switches. That *is* the only difference. -A ___ cisco-nsp mailing list

[c-nsp] on Bogons and default bgp routes

Hi list, i have several BGP networks that only use default routes from a couple of ISPs. Is it necessary for us to implement bogon lists or just leave it up to our upstreams? Although we put the basic martian list, we don't have fullroutes implemented as we only use bgp for redundancy purposes.