What about your other TOR switch? If it has elected Switch 3 as its root,
that would explain why traffic is being forwarded over that link.
Can we see output from your other switches?
-Yuri
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Cord MacLeod cordmacl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 29, 2010, at 9:06
McDonald Richards wrote:
In defense of the ME3400 (and believe me I've had enough issues with
them to not like them as much as this email may suggest) - it's a
metro
ethernet switch...
It's TX buffers on the other hand..
Can anyone comment on the granularity of egress shaping on
Hi.
Does anyone have or use the ME3400s? What architecture are they based
on?
It's more or less a Catalyst 3750 which have gotten a more Metro
Ethernet/Service Provider oriented IOS-version.
Clearly they aren't a re-hashed 3750, and they seem to be a step
above the 3750s in terms of
Hi,
On 30/03/2010 6:49 PM, Per Carlson wrote:
The ME-series do have much more SP oriented features opposed what
Desktop Switching Business Unit ships (e.g. Cat 3xxx).
The ME3750 and ME3400(-nonE) are two (in my opinion) failed attempts.
The ME3750 lacks any decent customer ports (all RJ45),
Its 64 kbps for the class-based shaper and 100/500/1000 kbps for the
10/100/1000 mbps port-based shaper.
(100kbps for 10mbps ports, 500kbps for 100mbps ports, 1000kbps for
1000mbps ports)
--
Tassos
Brad Henshaw wrote on 30/03/2010 08:51:
Can anyone comment on the granularity of egress
Hi.
The ME3750 and ME3400(-nonE) are two (in my opinion) failed attempts.
The ME3750 lacks any decent customer ports (all RJ45), and the ME3400
doesn't have the hardware.
How do these compare with the ME6524 series?
The ME6524 is a completely different box. Don't get fooled by the
ME-prefix
On 03/30/2010 01:07 AM, Andy Koch wrote:
Depending on what routing protocol you are using you could write an EEM
applet to modify a route-map changing the advertised route metric when HSRP
master/slave status changes, but honestly I wouldn't bother - instead, just
deal with the issue.
If you
Hi,
Is anyone using the Nexus 7k platform in anger with around 4000 VLANs
(e.g. up to 16,000 VLANs in multiple vDCs)? We are intending to offer
a VLAN-per-customer model which scales above the 4096 VLAN limit
within one switching domain.
Cheers,
Matt
--
Matthew Melbourne
On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 11:47 +0100, Phil Mayers wrote:
As I said, I wouldn't even do that personally. HSRP doesn't work that
way, the locally connected route is up and will always override,
e.g. in the following topology:
offsite -- router-slave -- router-master
|
i am currently planning design a WiMAX network
the network will resides on Layer 2 structure
what are the most security concerns to watch for ?
_
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email
http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Tuesday/RAS_Future_Points_N47_Tues.pdf
Best Regards,
Guillaume FORTAINE
On 03/30/2010 12:56 PM, Matthew Melbourne wrote:
Hi,
Is anyone using the Nexus 7k platform in anger with around4000 VLANs
(e.g. up
That's exactly what they are: a fixed config 6500. Note that's a Sup32
that powers the box and that the customer ports are oversubscribed 3:1
(it's all in the datasheet). The Sup32 makes it never cope with full
internet routes (max 256k prefixes) if that's what you have in plans.
So one thing
On 03/30/2010 12:11 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote:
I a tactless attempt to digress, an MPLS VPN setup would actually give
you the ability to force router-master to receive all traffic from
upstream. Having the router-master use a higher local-preference for the
prefix in MP-BGP would force others to
Chuck,
We were in the same situation in one of our data centers and we installed a
PECO II power system. The cabinet we have holds 3 50AMP rectifiers (we have it
configured for N+1 so we get 100AMPs out of the cabinet and redundancy). You
can also expand the main cabinet with another
Cord MacLeod wrote:
Does this give enough information? From my understanding of spanning tree,
g0/46 should not be used for any traffic. g0/45 is the root port for all
vlans.
Spanning tree doesn't determine where traffic flows, it determines which ports
are active or blocking in their
SXF17a?
What you sent me shows:
05:04:11: %C6K_PLATFORM-2-PEER_RESET: RP is being reset by the SP
%Software-forced reload
= Start of Crashinfo Collection (14:12:13 UTC Wed Sep 6 2000)
==
For image:
Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
IOS (tm) s72033_rp Software
Do you want to deliver a vlan (L2 bridge domain per customer) or use a
1Q tag per customer terminating to a L3 sub-interface? If you want the
latter you can do more than 4K in a single VDC.
Ian
On 3/30/10 3:56 AM, Matthew Melbourne wrote:
Hi,
Is anyone using the Nexus 7k platform in anger
On Mar 29, 2010, at 11:06 PM, Yuri Bank wrote:
What about your other TOR switch? If it has elected Switch 3 as its root,
that would explain why traffic is being forwarded over that link.
There is no traffic inbound on g0/46 as shown below.
Can we see output from your other switches?
Hi,
I am using a FWSM 3.1(5), in routed mode, with multiple contexts.
This was the configuration before any changes were done:
-
access-list DMZ1-NAT extended permit ip any 192.168.0 255.255.0.0
access-list DMZ1-NAT extended permit ip any 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0
access-list DMZ1-NAT extended
Hello,
I am involved with a short-term project involving the purchase/installation
of a Cisco router which is capable of the following:
- OC-12 WAN interface
- High throughout (PPS)
- Redundancy
- Full routing table
I have looked at the 7600 and it is a viable option however we are also
looking
The ASR's and 7200's aren't NEBS compliant because they have the power
supplies on the back side of the router. I think you're looking at the
GSR's, CSR's or 7600's.
Regards,
Mike
--
Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP
Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com
w: +1
Rich-
If you go the 7600 or 6509-NEB-A route, you've got a couple options for
OC12. An older OSM-2OC12-POS-SI+ blade would save you probably ~$10k in
comparison to a new-of-life setup (7600-SIP-400 with SPA-1XOC12-POS
and SFP-OC12-IR1 optic). A chassis with dual SUP720-3BXL's, single OC12
card,
Another thing to keep in mind is rack depth. Most of the facilities we are in
allow a maximum of 15 front to back. The equipment will generally fit as long
as you don't mind the SFP's getting sheared off by the rolling ladders in the
aisle.
-Original Message-
From:
15 ?
What data facility only allows a half floor tile for front to rear space ?
Are there any servers that shallow ?
I have about 300 1U to 5U and not one of them is anything short of 24 at
minimum. Especially once you add a few inches for data, fiber or power
connections.
I do have a handful
You know that NEBs has different levels of compliance ?
http://www.nebs-faq.com/what_is_nebs_level_3.htm
If this is for a short term ( 1 month or 6 ? )
do you REALLY need a super duper studly box ?
Are you going to have to do the conversion from an OC circuit or can you get
this in a gigE ?
Anyone,
According to several docs I've read, such as this one:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps9336/product_solution_overview0900aecd806fa5d0.html
It appears that dual sups/chassis is planned for a future release. Can anyone
give me an approximate date or
26 matches
Mail list logo
