On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 13:56 +1000, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
Doesn't seem like much difference between 12.2(58)SE and 15.0(1)SE in
terms of either features or bug fixes, so if you've taken the (brave)
plunge and are already running 12.2(58)SE it looks like a fairly minor
upgrade.
Is something
Let's say a router is setup with connection to ISP 1 and ISP 2, which
are both non-BGP connection and traffic coming in from ISP 1 can't go
out ISP 2 and visa versa. Default route is set on ISP 1, with IP
SLA, failover to ISP 2.
I can configure NAT so it will NAT on the correct IP for each
Hi Ed,
We are deploying the ME36/3800X's as small-scale MPLS L3VPN PE devices with
Ethernet handoff. These are a fairly new platform, today we have many 6524's
in the role that need to be upgraded to the ME36/38.
Our operations monitoring groups like to collect flow-based accounting
statistics
I've had some quite odd problems with IPv6 with 12.2(58)SE1. Upon
loading the image, all IPv4 worked OK, but my IPv6 addresses on
loopbacks were there, but non functional. Routes for them were
propagated throughout OSPFv3 but I wasn't able to ping them from
anything other than the local
Il 28/07/2011 9.35, Reuben Farrelly ha scritto:
I've had some quite odd problems with IPv6 with
12.2(58)SE1 ... and two exhibited this
problem whereas two others didn't
Maybe trivial, but: did you check the SDM templates?
Regards,
Bergonz
--
Ing. Michele Bergonzoni -
Hello Jay,
you can a apply a route-map that would do PBR on the traffic generated by
the router like this:
route-map LocalPolicy permit 10
match ip address PingISP_A
set interface Serial0/0/0
ip local policy route-map LocalPolicy
Seems like your scenario perfectly matches the one
Yes.
Besides, IPv6 routing works fine and is done in hardware on the same
config with 12.2(55)SE3 with no other changes (desktop IPv4 and IPv6
routing template on both).
Reuben
On 28/07/2011 7:10 PM, Michele Bergonzoni wrote:
Il 28/07/2011 9.35, Reuben Farrelly ha scritto:
I've had some
Ed,
These would be replacing some 7200s with G2s for a large enterprise
customer. Pretty vanilla needs, ethernet handoffs from the SP up to 1gb/s.
They want the ability to shape and use more router-like QoS (MQC). Netflow
and WCCP are a necessity as well. This is a neat platform and much cheaper
Thanks everyone! I got it working with the ip local policy.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:08 AM, Pavel Skovajsa
pavel.skova...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Jay,
you can a apply a route-map that would do PBR on the traffic generated by
the router like this:
route-map LocalPolicy permit 10
match ip
Sorry, I believe the mailer or my mail was delayed a bit and I didn't
see the previous response.
This is bad behavior, your config looks good. I suspect it could be this
bug:
CSCsd11234ports fail to bundle when nonegotiate is configured
What version of software are you running?
Release
List,
I recently upgraded a few 2960 switches to 15.0(1)SE, and while they are
working fine, I did notice a strange syslog message upon boot-up that wasn't
previously there. The message is as follows:
*Mar 1 00:00:39.535: %DC-4-FILE_OPEN_WARNING: Not able to open
Hi All,
I am new to QoS technology. I have one question:
I have below connectivity and configuration example:
Client -- Switch-1 -- Router-1 --- Router-2 --- Network Cloud --- Server
Router-1 Router-2 are managed by me.
Switch-1 is not managed by me.
Router-1 has configured for QoS marking
Hi all,
Does anyone have any recommended reading for doing IPv6 BGP peering on
IOS-XR? We setup our peer with Cogent and can get full routes in, but can't
seem to figure out how to announce our /32. I had assumed it setup just the
same way as IPv4, but can't seem to get it to announce out. I did
Make sure you have both an inbound and outbound policy setup and
applied. Even if it's a simple permit any.
The Cisco IOS-XR Fundamentals book has some pretty good stuff in it.
http://www.ciscopress.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=1587052717
--chip
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Lee Starnes
Hi Osama,
One thing you will need to know is that it takes about 45 minutes to load
the new IOS-XR from IOS. Once this is complete, you will need to write a new
config. Not something that is practical if you are upgrading a production
router. If you are upgrading one that is not currently in
On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 05:13:41 PM Pshem Kowalczyk wrote:
The cost of equipment is not just the initial cost, it's
also the cost of support, both internally and
externally. It's still quite difficult to find people
with Huawei experience.
We keep our lives simple - Cisco and Juniper :-).
On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 07:51:10 AM David water wrote:
Can someone please share the working Rosen MVPN
configuration of Cisco and Juniper? Do I have to use
vrf-table-label or VT interface on Juniper router to
make it working?
Haven't worked with Rosen on this end, but NG-MVPN instead.
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 02:29:59AM -0400, Jay Nakamura wrote:
Is there a way, for example, a ping to the router coming into ISP2 can
be sent back out ISP2 when ISP2 is not the default route? Normal PBR
applied to ingress traffic on the interface so I wasn't sure what
could be done with
So I could be way way off here so take with many grains of salt.
Can't speak for IPV6 but with V4 they use an A / B peering arrangement
for customer links. Are you sure you're announcing your routes to the
correct peer? If they do IPV6 with a single address then sorry for the
misdirection
Hi all. I am new to the list and this is my first post. :)
Trying to get to the bottom of a situation, sans-TAC. Long story short, for
context sake, I had a 7300 that was replaced by a 7600 at my Rio de Janeiro
site connecting to SP and NY.
(SP --- RIO --- NY)
Everything was working fine by the
You will need to get the /32 into BGP first. Then you can let it out the
peering session.
1. A matching IGP route must exist. Most networks will use an anchor route for
their aggregate. You can also have a matching IGP route of exact same prefix
length.
router static
address-family ipv6
Hi Scott,
We are speaking with the IPv6 address for the peering and a separate IPv4
address for IPv4 peering. We have a route-policy that does a deny local and
permit all others for inbound and a route policy that permits our /32
outbound. Just kind of strange that it does not announce to them.
Matthew,
clear arp, clear ip route, clear cef, nothing helps, I have even reloaded SP
and Rio routers during a window, tired of this, and still it won't work.
I am running 12.2(33r)SRB4 on a RSP720-3CXL-GE. Interfaces have MPLS
running. And Multicast, but so they did before when it worked.
On 28/07/2011 19:33, Lee Starnes wrote:
Does anyone have any recommended reading for doing IPv6 BGP peering on
IOS-XR? We setup our peer with Cogent and can get full routes in, but can't
seem to figure out how to announce our /32. I had assumed it setup just the
same way as IPv4, but can't
Hi Frederic,
What we have is as follows. IPs are not the same, but everything else is.
!
route-policy cogent_v6_policy_out
if destination in cogent_v6_ps101 then
pass
else
drop
endif
end-policy
!
prefix-set cogent_v6_ps101
2700:3200::/32
end-set
!
Under the BGP peer, The route
It's very possible the fib is correct, but should be correctable by doing a
clear arp and a clear ip route *. What IOS are you running and what sup
engine do you have? Also, what does show ip cef exact-route source_ip dest_ip
show?
Are there anything else interesting configured? MPLS, PBR,
Hi Andrew,
The hold down route did it. Forgot that I had not added it for this block.
Thanks.
-Lee
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Koch, Andrew
andrew.k...@tdstelecom.comwrote:
You will need to get the /32 into BGP first. Then you can let it out the
peering session.
1. A matching IGP
Nick, if I may ask, since I've nt used XR yet, are the prefix-sets you
detailed like the ios prefix-lists?
Your way of expressing the filter seems much more spiffy than the old
ip prefix-list internal only seq 5 a.b.c.d/19 le 32
or similar.
-Original Message-
From: Nick Hilliard
On 28/07/2011 21:25, Scott Granados wrote:
Nick, if I may ask, since I've nt used XR yet, are the prefix-sets you
detailed like the ios prefix-lists?
Your way of expressing the filter seems much more spiffy than the old
ip prefix-list internal only seq 5 a.b.c.d/19 le 32
Yep, it's really
Thanks John - I resolved the problem last night during outage window.
What worked was setting eth int to default (default interface
fastEthernet 0/x) and then re-adding the original eth port
config...working now with both eth ints as members of portchan.
Thanks again to all who responded.
I'm not an mpls person, but I know how I would start to debug it. I would save
the current config, and then setup the simplest possible configuration (no nat,
minimum mpls, no hold-queues, no rsvp, no pim, no routing, just a single p2p
link. Test the hell out of it. Then setup some static
Hi,
Have 2 100Mb eth ports in portchan, and 1 port seems to be doing all
the receiving:
sh interfaces fastEthernet 0/1
FastEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up (connected) Hardware is
Fast Ethernet, address is f4ac.c17d.af83 (bia f4ac.c17d.af83)
Description: FEC_TO_ESW01_P20
MTU 1998
Hi,
Can you provide config details on these for both sides? While we don't use
2950 switches, run port channels at the gig level between 3550/60 and 6500
without these issues, so I suspect you have something missing in your
config.
-Lee
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:32 PM, m...@adv.gcomm.com.au
Quoting Lee Starnes lee.t.star...@gmail.com:
Hi,
Can you provide config details on these for both sides? While we don't use
2950 switches, run port channels at the gig level between 3550/60 and 6500
without these issues, so I suspect you have something missing in your
config.
Hi Lee,
oh - and current load-balance is default of src mac
3560
sh etherchannel load-balance EtherChannel Load-Balancing Configuration:
src-mac
EtherChannel Load-Balancing Addresses Used Per-Protocol:
Non-IP: Source MAC address
IPv4: Source MAC address
IPv6: Source MAC address
2950 has far
35 matches
Mail list logo
