There is a bug in most of SEs for all stackable models, which makes
drop statistics unusable (see CSCso81660 for example - there are lots
of BugIDs with same diagnostics and keep in mind Fixed-in is a lie).
Reported numbers aren't realistic and often go both ways - increase
and decrease in what
FWIW, while using class-default or a MAC filter would be logical ways
to avoid IPv4 dependencies, neither seems to work, although both could
be applied to an interface. This is unlike class-maps which reference
IPv6 ACLs, which are accepted without errors, along with policy maps
which reference
That is odd I have previously used the mac addresss method on the 2960. Have
you tried a differnt code rev?
Mack
- Original Message -
From: Vincent C Jones [mailto:v.jo...@networkingunlimited.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 07:07 AM
To: Mack McBride
Cc: cisco-nsp
Hi all!
I'm observing some behaviour of EIGRP which I don't understand.
According to docs, It looks like incorrect EIGRP desicion whether
insert route into routing table or not.
My goal is to have 2 paths between 2 routes with unequal load
balancing, but main condition is to manage metrics only
Notice that Advertised Distance (768) over Tunnel2 is now Feasible
Distance (512) of the best route and as such this route can't be a
feasible successor, can't be considered as an alternative path and
therefore can't be installed in routing table. So, as long as
offset-list adds =255, advertised
The fa0/1 interface literally plugs into the cable modem for the ISP. Do
you think I should increase the buffer size a bit for that interface? I'm
sure there is a command for that. I added another sh int and the full
sh buffer output near the bottom of this message.
#sh ver
Cisco IOS Software,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What kind of performance do you see if you temporarily remove the ip
access-group and ip inspect commands from the interface? (Sorry if you already
did this. I might have missed some posts). What's configured on the interface
connected to the
hi Mack,
Tried c2960-lanbasek9-mz.150-1.SE and 2960-lanbasek9-mz.122-58.SE2. Same
results. Show sdm and run (abridged) are below
Switch-1#show sdm prefer
The current template is dual-ipv4-and-ipv6 default template.
The selected template optimizes the resources in
the switch to support this
The router is process switching (and dropping) a lot of packets. I'd try it
without CBAC and with ip virtual-reassembly disabled. See if you can get it
to work at close to wirerate before re-enabling features. Might be worth
trying a recent mainline 15.0 release, I seem to remember lots of
Sounds good guys. I'll do some more testing tonight with CBAC and ip
virtual-reassembly disabled and then report back. Innitially though, I did
do testing without CBAC and the extended access-list and the performance
was better but not much. I really want to focus on the process switcing
issue.
Just some stats in regards to the process switching going on. Perhaps there
is a local routing issue going. The router has a 16 port swtich module and
voip configuration as well.
rtr2811#sh int fa0/1 stats
FastEthernet0/1
Switching pathPkts In Chars In Pkts Out Chars Out
You're on the right path. The more important number is the packets in/out,
as opposed to the characters. Look at the ratio of packets in/out for
processor vs. Route-cache for the two interfaces. Fa0/1 is process
switching about 80% of them inbound. That's pretty bad.The output looks
How are you determining if the policing is working?
For reference purposes the 2960 switch polices AFTER incoming BW is calculated.
The 2960 also does not police outgoing bandwidth.
Mack
-Original Message-
From: Vincent C Jones [mailto:v.jo...@networkingunlimited.com]
Sent: Thursday,
The command:
router#show ip cef switching statistics feature
Will show you which feature is causing traffic to be punted to CPU.
Reuben
On 23/12/2011 7:42 AM, Chuck Church wrote:
You're on the right path. The more important number is the packets in/out,
as opposed to the characters. Look
Testing is fairly simple. I set the police value to 8000 bps (1KByte/s),
8000 byte burst. Then send 1000 byte ICMP ping packets at a rate of
5/sec to a dual-stacked PC on the switch port Fa0/17. The responses are
policed as they enter the switch for the return journey. Except as noted
in the
Hi!
Thanks Andriy,
that's exactly what I was missing - required condition to be a
feasible successor:
Note: If a path is not a feasible successor, the path is not used in
load balancing. Refer to the Feasible Distance, Reported Distance, and
Feasible Successor section of Enhanced Interior
Hey All,
I'm experiencing an issue with re-establishing BGP routes as preferred over
EIGRP, after failure/restore.
Network diagram scheme:
The text in the middle of the diagram indicates the route summarization
static route injections performed on each firewall.
Both FW's are
17 matches
Mail list logo
