g...@greenie.muc.de (Gert Doering) wrote:
currently, there's 2.4 through 2.6 and 3.1S available for download,
Rest assured, this problem is going to be solved.
I guess what you mean is that the part with the accessibility is going to
be solved, right? ;-)
Elmi.
--
Machen Sie sich erst
(apologies for duplicates, thought this might be interesting for folks
on both lists):
Hi,
In case anyone is looking into deploying the 'ipv6 nd raguard' feature
introduced in SXI4 on Cat6.5k: I suggest you don't (for now, at least).
We found an issue with it causing it to intermittently drop
On Friday, November 19, 2010 05:20:49 am Pshem Kowalczyk
wrote:
Yet another update. I turns out that the old 'turn it off
and on again' worked. After I reload the box I got the
MTU of the subinterfaces at 4400, which is good. I still
had to use clns mtu (of 4379) to make it work.
Which box
On Thursday, November 18, 2010 01:32:58 am Nick Hilliard
wrote:
because the 7600 is a router and the 6500 is a switch?
You mean by wording? Because in practice, I sort of found
the 7600 to be a switch too, pretending to be a router (when
ES cards aren't in use) :-).
Glad we never did buy
On 19.11.2010 09:32, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
g...@greenie.muc.de (Gert Doering) wrote:
currently, there's 2.4 through 2.6 and 3.1S available for download,
Rest assured, this problem is going to be solved.
I guess what you mean is that the part with the accessibility is going to
be solved,
On Thursday, November 18, 2010 11:21:05 am Pete Templin
wrote:
Likewise, your blackhole routes need to
be longer than existing routing entries, or the
more-specific routes will take precedence, regardless of
local-pref.
Which is why we limit customers to /32 (v4) and /128 (v6)
when sending
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 04:26:14PM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
Glad we never did buy these platforms. I'd be kicking myself
right about now.
Given the alternatives at the time, I still think we go the right choice
- lots of port, lots of forwarding power, affordable price. We knew
that
Hi
I have small network consist 4 routers (all are VXRs, IOS
12.2(33)SRE2). PE1 is connected to P1 and P2 using STM-1 POS. PE-2 is
connected like PE-1 by STM-1 links to P1 and P2 routers. Core P1 and
P2 routers are interconnected by GigabitEthernet. Here is network
diagram:
p1
/|\
pe1 |
For the next round of purchases, I'm not sure what we'll end up at. All
real routers from $C tend to be a bit on the expensive side of things,
so we might go for just a switch from $J - the MXes really look
promising... and less politics there.
A significant difference from 6500/7600
p1
/|\
pe1 | pe2
\|/
p2
Are routers has iBGP, IS-IS, MPLS (LDP) and MPLS TE Tunnels enabled.
I established MPLS TE tunnels from PE1 to PE2 but traffic is going
only via path pe1-p1-pe2.
Can I configure something inside TE Tunnel configuration to use both
paths eg
On Thursday, November 18, 2010 03:41:31 pm Garry wrote:
we'll be receiving two ASR1k boxes these days (another
one to be ordered shortly), and I was wondering which
IOS I should be using ... we did some tests on a router
provided by Cisco, which hasn't been long ago, and it
seems like
configure a different bandwidth, or use tunnel mpls traffic-eng
load-share to distribute the traffic accordingly. this will modify the
CEF hash results.
Thanks for help Oli. I established second tunnel with explicit path
and configured 'tunnel mpls traffic-eng load-share' on both. It works
Daniel,
excellent, thanks a lot for the info - I've updated the bug record so the others
can benefit from this finding.
cheers,
andrew
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Daniel Verlouw wrote:
(apologies for duplicates, thought this might be interesting for folks
on both lists):
Hi,
In case anyone is
Hi
I could use some assitance. We are trying to limit simaltaneous connections by
users and 1 for everything else. This is to prevent users from using
certain programs like bit torrent, etc. When we add the following command to
the router the NAT translation table fills and crashes and
On Friday, November 19, 2010 05:30:24 pm Gert Doering wrote:
Given the alternatives at the time, I still think we go
the right choice - lots of port, lots of forwarding
power, affordable price. We knew that there were
hardware limitations (VLAN space, netflow/tcp flags) but
the alternatives
New ACE30:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/modules/ps2706/ps6906/product_bul
letin_c25_632385.html
And new Software:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/services_modules/ace/vA4_
1_0/release/note/ACE_mod_rn_A410.html
So its possible to convert one ACE10 or ACE20 to
On Friday, November 19, 2010 05:51:27 pm sth...@nethelp.no
wrote:
We use our MX boxes purely as routers and are very happy
with them in that role.
Juniper, just so they can play in a larger space in your
network, will even propose that you use the MX as a core
switch. While it is feasible
Hi
There is resale switch2950(48 ports). I would like to buy it for
office use. How do I know it is good?
ls all regular switchs to support the truckport setting vlan to router?
if not, how can I know this switch can have this feature?
Thank you
___
Hi Edward,
It sounds like you are missing the following line in your configuration:
aaa authorization exec authentication-server
Issue show curpriv after the user logs in to verify they are assigned
the correct privilege level from the Radius server.
Sincerely,
David.
Edward Iong wrote:
simple answer
Its NOT possible to assign priv level on PIX/ASAm you still have to type
in enable.
there is no such thing like exec authorization via aaa in the OS of the
firewalls. It´s only possible in CATOS/IOS/NX-OS
Am 19.11.2010 15:29, schrieb David White, Jr. (dwhitejr):
Hi Edward,
If you can deal with Fastethernet, then yes, it´s a perfect an simple
Office switch. with the right IOS,also 802.1X with dynamic vlan
aissgnment is possible. And yes 802.1Q is also no problem.
Am 19.11.2010 15:19, schrieb Deric Kwok:
Hi
There is resale switch2950(48 ports). I would like to
Re guys,
maybe someone here can help me with some reassurement.
I've been looking for ASR-compatible ASRs, and the data sheet for SPA
support points to a few documents about SPAs. In my case, the interesting
one is the one about the Ethernet SPAs, at:
On Friday, November 19, 2010 11:37:29 pm Elmar K. Bins
wrote:
I wonder now, whether anyone of you guys would know if
that's just the typical Cisco sloppyness when it comes
to documentation,...
Yes, that'll work :-).
So, what SPAs are you using in ASRs?
We have the 5-port Gig-E SPA working
Does anyone know when you would specify multiple default routers in a
dhcp pool? How would a client know which router to use?
R1#sh run | s pool
ip dhcp pool TEST
network 155.1.146.0 255.255.255.0
default-router 155.1.146.10 155.1.146.1 ---
dns-server 155.1.146.1
thank you in
On 18/11/2010 20:02, Victor Lyapunov wrote:
I am examining the prospect of enabling urfp in a cisco 7609 / RSP 720
platform, for subscriber facing interfaces.
Just be aware that enabling ipv6 urpf on an interface will cause that ipv6
traffic to be forwarded in software.
Nick
On 19-11-10 17:58, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 18/11/2010 20:02, Victor Lyapunov wrote:
I am examining the prospect of enabling urfp in a cisco 7609 / RSP 720
platform, for subscriber facing interfaces.
Just be aware that enabling ipv6 urpf on an interface will cause that ipv6
traffic to be
On 19/11/2010 17:38, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
I guess it is also a case with 6500 sup720, isn't it? Does it depend on
software version?
it's an EARL7 limitation, so it affects everything up to and including the
PFC3C and it doesn't depend on software revision.
Nick
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 09:32:03AM +0100, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
g...@greenie.muc.de (Gert Doering) wrote:
currently, there's 2.4 through 2.6 and 3.1S available for download,
Rest assured, this problem is going to be solved.
I guess what you mean is that the part with the
I was wondering if there was any legitimate way to get access to IOS for legacy
devices. I have a 2611, 3725 and pair of 2950's in my home lab that I would
like to test some things on. Thanks
---
Brian Raaen
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
On 19/11/2010 22:07, Brian Raaen wrote:
I was wondering if there was any legitimate way to get access to IOS for
legacy devices. I have a 2611, 3725 and pair of 2950's in my home lab
that I would like to test some things on. Thanks
You could look back through Cisco's security advisories and
On 11/19/2010 14:07, Brian Raaen wrote:
I was wondering if there was any legitimate way to get access to IOS for
legacy devices. I have a 2611, 3725 and pair of 2950's in my home lab that I
would like to test some things on. Thanks
Right now any valid service contract will get you access
On 2010-11-19 19:06, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 19/11/2010 17:38, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
I guess it is also a case with 6500 sup720, isn't it? Does it depend on
software version?
it's an EARL7 limitation, so it affects everything up to and including the
PFC3C and it doesn't depend on software
What happens on Dec. 13?
On 11/19/2010 3:52 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 11/19/2010 14:07, Brian Raaen wrote:
I was wondering if there was any legitimate way to get access to IOS for legacy
devices. I have a 2611, 3725 and pair of 2950's in my home lab that I would
like to test some things
They are moving over to a system where you will only be able to download SW
for devices that you have active service contracts for. In comparison to the
setup at the moment where as long as you have a valid contract for 1 device
you can actually download the software for any device.
On Sat, Nov
34 matches
Mail list logo
