On 7/22/10 10:11 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Mike wrote:
Howdy,
This isn't exactly cisco-centric, but it's certainly related
operationally.
I operate a county wide isp network and I have about 15 different pops.
I equip each with APC700/1400's and with XR battery packs, with the goal
being
Yes, you would be much better served by an online UPS, which would be
anything in the Smart-UPS RT series if you want to stick with APC.
Below
that it's just line interactive. An online UPS also has a bypass in
them, so in theory any faults should cause the unit to switch to bypass
and send an
Hello Mike, I have a similar scenario and have started using Gamatronic. I
have rectifiers powering fibre kit, wireless base station and some Cisco
ME3400s with added batteries (12hours) with snmp for the last year and I am
quite impressed with the performance. Good price too IMHO.
Hi
sorry for this very simple qestion, but :
i have two cisco routers:
one big router with the full route table of internet.
I want create a BGP session from the second to the first
but i want sent only the defaut route, not the full table.
On the big, i have:
router bgp XXX
neighbor
On 23/07/10 10:58, Stephane MAGAND wrote:
ip prefix-list annonce-C1 seq 100 permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 24
This is wrong. It says:
match any prefix under 0.0.0.0/0 (i.e. all of them) with a subnet mask
= 24. That is the full table.
You just want:
ip prefix-list annonce-C1 seq 100 permit 0.0.0.0/0
On Friday, 23 July, 2010 06:27 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
ip prefix-list annonce-C1 seq 100 permit 0.0.0.0/0
Shouldn't it be '... permit 0.0.0.0/32' ? IMHO, 0/0 is all.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On 23/07/10 11:58, Stephane MAGAND wrote:
I want create a BGP session from the second to the first
but i want sent only the defaut route, not the full table.
On the big, i have:
snip
ip prefix-list annonce-C1 seq 100 permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 24
You should leave out le 24, and just permit
On 23/07/10 11:45, roy wrote:
On Friday, 23 July, 2010 06:27 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
ip prefix-list annonce-C1 seq 100 permit 0.0.0.0/0
Shouldn't it be '... permit 0.0.0.0/32' ? IMHO, 0/0 is all.
No.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
Hi Stephane,
* Stephane MAGAND stmagconsult...@gmail.com [2010-07-23 12:07]:
I want create a BGP session from the second to the first
but i want sent only the defaut route, not the full table.
On the big, i have:
router bgp XXX
neighbor 78.xx.xx.xx remote-as 3xxx
neighbor
ip prefix-list annonce-C1 seq 100 permit 0.0.0.0/0
Shouldn't it be '... permit 0.0.0.0/32' ? IMHO, 0/0 is all.
no, it should be 0.0.0.0/0 which matches the default route
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Prefix list ' annonce-C1 ' needs to have a default deny statement. Also,
permitting 0.0.0.0/0 in prefix list 'announce - C1' is not required as there is
already a default originate command.
Regards
Sandhya S
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
I felt inclined to share this because I have heard more than a few
misconceptions regarding 0.0.0.0/32 and 0.0.0.0/0.
1) The default route is always 0.0.0.0/0. In the case of prefix lists,
adding any sort of accept length will cause prefixes of the configured
length to be permitted. (everyone has
May I ask what the brand of ATS that shorted out? We just ordered our first
ATSs yesterday to help with some internal system redundancies yesterday.
Thanks,
-Jeff
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Seth
hi,
I have been seeing a very high number of supervisor 720 (WS-SUP720) crashes
in many customer's environment. Bassically the SP stops receiving the heart
beats from RP.
Following error is very common reasons seen sometimes for SP and sometimes
for RP.
For SP
%CPU_MONITOR-SP-6-NOT_HEARD:
This behavior looks like a bug documented here:
http://tools.cisco.com/Support/BugToolKit/search/getBugDetails.do?method=fetchBugDetailsbugId=CSCsj11038from=summary
As far as it operating, well... As you said, leave well enough alone.
--WM
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Sascha Pollok
On 23/07/10 14:25, krunal shah wrote:
hi,
I have been seeing a very high number of supervisor 720 (WS-SUP720) crashes
in many customer's environment. Bassically the SP stops receiving the heart
beats from RP.
Which IOS version?
What does the CPU load look like on the box?
IOS is normally 12.2(33) SXHxx and SXIxx series.
Not sure about the CPU load at the time of switch crash but looks like EOBC
channel reamins full from traffic. I dnt know if CoPP solves this problem.
Krunal
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.ukwrote:
On
Hello William,
2) Routing to 0.0.0.0 does not do what you may think it does. That is
because CEF maintains a receive entry for 0.0.0.0/32
ex:
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.16.1.1
ip route 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.0
This will cause all traffic except the 10.0.0.0/24 prefix to be routed
to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
We've got a pair of 7600/720-3BXL routers, one is running SXI3 and the
other SXF16 . Both have some IPv6 unicast BGP sessions set up to a few
customer boxes running quagga, and I've added a prefix-list to limit
them to receiving only a IPv6
Any experience with STM?
El 21/07/10 17:14, Jeferson Guardia escribió:
iDirect is a good technology, agred with Terry. Besides, they offer great
courses to give training for the staff in US - Virginia.
Rgs,
2010/7/18 Ziv Leyesz...@gilat.net
I second Terry, we have good experience with
I'm interested as well in any real world experience with the 7500. It's the
highest density switch you can get these days and the packaging and power
requirements look nice on paper as well. I know Cisco just came out with an F
series blade for the 7K which is 32x10GE line rate, but it has
I have an ATM T-1 which is experiencing traffic slowdowns even though we are
nowhere near commit. Even on 5 sec intervals. Router is a 2620. The LEC
(Qwest) says they loop the NIU and send patterns w/o errors. They can loop
my CSU but they can't send patterns.
I can find anything like this in a
james edwards wrote:
I have an ATM T-1 which is experiencing traffic slowdowns even though we are
nowhere near commit. Even on 5 sec intervals. Router is a 2620. The LEC
(Qwest) says they loop the NIU and send patterns w/o errors. They can loop
my CSU but they can't send patterns.
I can find
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:15 PM, David DeSimone f...@verio.net wrote:
Tassos Chatzithomaoglou ach...@forthnet.gr wrote:
Has anyone met any issues with .0 and .255 as host addresses?
There is a longstanding bug in Windows TCP/IP stack which prevents it
from communicating properly with hosts
Well for starters, smokeping and mrtg are your friends. You are graphing
this line, yes? You want to see that yes, mrtg confirms you are not maxing
anything out, and that smokeping is all green (no packetloss) and that your
latency is stable. I bet one or more of these variables goes out of
Hi,
wondering, is there a version of the Cisco switch command service
unsupported-transceiver for routers? (3825) I've had a case where a
customer had an SFP failure and only had some third party SFPs flying
around, which of course wouldn't work (they do in Cisco switches with
the option set), so
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Garry wrote:
wondering, is there a version of the Cisco switch command service
unsupported-transceiver for routers? (3825) I've had a case where a
customer had an SFP failure and only had some third party SFPs flying
around, which of course wouldn't work (they do in Cisco
27 matches
Mail list logo
