hi,
heavy CRC error generating on serial link,
anyone can tell me reason ?? solution ??
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
show interface summary cisco
need description
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
On 7/8/10 11:57 PM, vijay gore wrote:
hi,
heavy CRC error generating on serial link,
anyone can tell me reason ?? solution ??
Most likely physical layer issues. Wet copper cable pairs (T-1), dirty
fiber (optical), etc. Can you be more specific as to the nature of the
link such as speed,
2 options,
Faulty serial port or issue with the link (have the provider check it)
You see the crc's on both sides? - more likely link issue
First check is ask the provider to loop the link facing your equipment and
see if you still have the errors
cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net wrote on
You can do mpls on a gre tunnel, just configure the tunnel interface for
mpls and watch out for mtu issues...
And remember, that command ip tcp adjust-mss doesn't work on labeled packets
:( So, you have to put it on only-IP-in/out interfaces,not on interfaces
enabled for mpls.
See http://lmgtfy.com/?q=show+interface+summary+cisco
cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net wrote on 09/07/2010 08:59:
show interface summary cisco
need description
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
QinQ config from one of our ME3400:
Cisco IOS Software, ME340x Software (ME340x-METROIPACCESSK9-M), Version
12.2(53)SE, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc2)
Switch Ports Model SW VersionSW Image
-- - - ----
*1 26
Thanks for explaining the semantical differences. What I'm looking to do is
the termination -- wouldn't the ME3400 do the trick?
No, the ME3400 cannot terminate dual tagged VLANs (encapsulation dot1q
x second-dot1q y).
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Well, first of all sorry if this email is considered an off-topic subject.
In the other hand I can't see a better place to talk about this.
I use ubuntu 10.04 64bits, firefox 3.6.6 and java 6.20.
I enter at tools.cisco.com to manage the SRs and when I entered in one
of them the firefox lauchs
So I have two 3750 (no stackwise) that uplink to a 6509.
I have setup pvlans on both 3750's and they are working as expected. I
cannot ping servers on the same 3750 switch.
But of course if the servers try to communicate with another server on
the OTHER 3750 switch, the ping is successful
On 09/07/10 12:39, LM wrote:
Well, first of all sorry if this email is considered an off-topic subject.
In the other hand I can't see a better place to talk about this.
I use ubuntu 10.04 64bits, firefox 3.6.6 and java 6.20.
I enter at tools.cisco.com to manage the SRs and when I entered in
Don't feel lonesome, every advance in their website technology is a
deterrent to
getting anything done.
They can stick all the flashy videos they like in the sales pages, but please
downgrade
all the support pages to HTML 1.0 :-)
or Gopher...
or FTP...
Jeff :-)
Had the same problem a few years ago.
Was solved using a separate vlan for each switch (we had 3500XL CPE)
Scale to a few hundred CPE switches
Support for ip unnumbered from SXF
6500
Int vl 100
Ip add 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.0
Int vlan 200
Desc CPE switch 1
Ip unnumbered vlan 100
Ip local
pvlans do not work only local. just configure the uplink to 6509 as
regular trunk, and allow 810,666. And you should configure the vlans on
6509 as private also (as you configure them on 3750)
John
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Erik Witkop wrote:
So I have two 3750 (no stackwise) that uplink to a
Thanks John.
That seems viable. My only concern is if I have more and more customers
coming into distribution, the config could get hairy.
I was hoping I could make a different isolated vlan on the second 3750
switch. And then I was hoping that a ping from isolated vlan to isolated
vlan
So it sounds like if an end-customer wants an *untagged* port off of an SP
switch that there aren't any/many options to deliver double-tagged traffic
to that SP switch. Sounds like we can have double-tagged traffic between
the core and distribution, but when we bring it to the edge we need to
Thanks John.
That seems viable. My only concern is if I have more and more customers
coming into distribution, the config could get hairy.
I was hoping I could make a different isolated vlan on the second 3750
switch. And then I was hoping that a ping from isolated vlan to isolated vlan
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Erik Witkop ewit...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks John.
That seems viable. My only concern is if I have more and more customers
coming into distribution, the config could get hairy.
I was hoping I could make a different isolated vlan on the second 3750
switch. And
Ok, that makes sense.
Thanks John. I will setup the trunks and give it a whirl.
Thanks for taking the time to help!
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
Wow, thanks Matt. This is great.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
At least on MacOS it asks if I want to give the applet access to the computer
and I say NO.
You might want to try firefox 4.0b1 and see if it is better.
Jared Mauch
On Jul 9, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote:
Don't feel lonesome, every advance in their website technology
On 09/07/10 16:11, Jared Mauch wrote:
At least on MacOS it asks if I want to give the applet access to the computer
and I say NO.
When I do that, it seems to spin in a loop, then again prompts me.
Grumble.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
On Jul 9, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 09/07/10 16:11, Jared Mauch wrote:
At least on MacOS it asks if I want to give the applet access to the
computer and I say NO.
When I do that, it seems to spin in a loop, then again prompts me.
Grumble.
I have to say no 3X then it
Hello,
Based on what I've read PFC (Priority Flow Control) just does a
pause type functionality on a more granular level, per CoS instead
of a per link. I was wondering if you could configure PFC policy for
iSCSI on the Cisco Nexus 5000s or is that only hard written for only
FCoE? Not sure how
Nice to see that I am not alone with problems at cisco.com.
I can't understand how is possible to make so ticket website so bad.
El 09/07/10 14:47, Phil Mayers escribió:
On 09/07/10 12:39, LM wrote:
Well, first of all sorry if this email is considered an off-topic
subject.
In the other hand
I've got a VPN setup something like:
Remote site --- Third Party Network --- Cisco 2811 --- Internet
| | |
|--- VPN ---| VRF X |
^
10.x.y.z
Not completely sure I am clear on the config you are using but if the vpn
tunnel is a crypto-map on a physical interface then that interface needs to be
ip nat inside or if doing GREoIPSEC then the GRE tunnel interface needs to be
ip nat inside.
NAT will only consider packets for translation
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 07:13:08PM +0200, LM wrote:
I can't understand how is possible to make so ticket website so bad.
Year-long dedication.
It's not like you can build such a high-quality web site over night.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
On 7/9/2010 3:58 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 07:13:08PM +0200, LM wrote:
I can't understand how is possible to make so ticket website so bad.
Year-long dedication.
It's not like you can build such a high-quality web site over night.
And new bells, whistles, and
I have a strange problem with ZBFW or I am just missing something obvious.
3845 running 12.4(24)T advipservices
I am trying to apply a firewall rule between two entities. Since I am
not 100% sure what all traffic is passing through the two, I wanted to
write rules for what I know and pass
LM asturlui...@gmail.com wrote:
Nice to see that I am not alone with problems at cisco.com.
I can't understand how is possible to make so ticket website so bad.
Do you not have 'web monkeys' where you work? If so, then are you
hiring? ;)
Cheers
--
Alexander Clouter
.sigmonster says:
Hi, I am currently trying to provide one of our clients a vlan over a PPP link
as per their request of only a layer 2 connection.
The connection would be like 3750g -- 7200 -- 1841 where the 7200 and 1841
is a ppp link. In doing some research, we found L2TPv3 to be a viable option.
However, I
mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5266 (20100709) __
The message was checked by ESET NOD32
Daniel D Jones ddjo...@riddlemaster.org wrote:
I'm SSH'd into a Sun server, and then telnetting from there, and I
can't even Ctrl-Z, Ctrl-C, or Ctrl-X out. I've even tried
Ctrl-Shift-6 X without any success. The only way I can get out of the
session is to kill the SSH session to the Sun
Anyone,
Ran into a weird issue today with a re-build of a VSS pair. A botched
IOS upgrade forced me to rebuild the pair. Was going ok, but I'm having
trouble getting the VSL link up between the two. Switch 2 had the port channel
for the VSL link up/up, but on switch 1, it stays
Tom,
iSCSI runs atop of TCP. generally speaking, the TCP state machine uses packet
drop (lost segments) to tune its transmit rate to the capabilities of the
network end-to-end.
PFC will essentially provide a no-drop environment which while in face value
may seem to be beneficial in reality
36 matches
Mail list logo
