On 29/05/12 15:41, CiscoNSP_list CiscoNSP_list wrote:
Are there any issues with setting mtu at 9000? (We have a mix of
routers/switches some of which only support mtu of 1500), so is adding a new
switch(or adjusting an existing switch(3560+2960)) going to cause issues if
other connecting
Hi,
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 04:11:17PM +1030, CiscoNSP_list CiscoNSP_list wrote:
Are there any issues with setting mtu at 9000? (We have a mix of
routers/switches some of which only support mtu of 1500), so is adding a new
switch(or adjusting an existing switch(3560+2960)) going to cause
On (2012-05-29 16:09 +1000), Julien Goodwin wrote:
Are there any issues with setting mtu at 9000? (We have a mix of
routers/switches some of which only support mtu of 1500), so is adding a
new switch(or adjusting an existing switch(3560+2960)) going to cause
issues if other connecting
Hi Ulrich,
The only problem with pinging every IP in the subnet assigned to an
interface (for example) is that multiple IPs may reside on the same
IP. Take a firewall for example, if multiple IPs are routed to a
firewall (say 192.168.1.10 to 192.168.1.20). It's address maybe
192.168.1.10 and
Hi,
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 04:45:01PM +1030, CiscoNSP_list CiscoNSP_list wrote:
You need to ensure that the MTU settings of the layer3 devices connected
to the l2 fabric is smaller or equal than the *lowest* L2 MTU of any
switch in the fabric.
If one of the switches has a bigger L2
On 29/05/2012 6:09 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Is it best practice to set all switches to max mtu?
Big enough to achieve what you need to achieve. If all your L3 devices
only use 1500 bps MTU, and no EoMPLS tunneling or whatnot, there is no
real benefit in upping the switch MTU. There does not
Hi,
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 06:40:38PM +1000, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
I've often wondered about supposed downsides myself. Why is it that we
don't see the layer 2 MTU set as high as possible on Cisco devices out
of the box, but a relatively normal routing MTU set to 1500 in the
default
Hi All,
*Can I use BGP instead of any IGP?*
*
*
*Best answer ... awaited**
*
___
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 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:53:35 AM vijay gore wrote:
do you mean that you can not use BGP instead of IGP, even
static route.
Thoroughly speaking, you can't use BGP as an IGP in the
context of what IGP's are meant to do.
adding_complexity
But in concept, you can use BGP as an IGP, e.g.,
thanks Mark, you cleared my doubts
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:53:35 AM vijay gore wrote:
do you mean that you can not use BGP instead of IGP, even
static route.
Thoroughly speaking, you can't use BGP as an IGP in
Hi All,
*Why weight doesn’t fall under path attribute category?*
*
*
*
*
___
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/
One thing that I recently suffered thru regarding this is how your
vendors define jumbo. In a single vendor shop like Cisco, you may
define 9000 to your end devices and 9216 to your switching to account
for overhead. But other vendors treat jumbo differently and some (Yes,
this is 2012) don't
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 02:06:00 PM -Hammer- wrote:
One thing that I recently suffered thru regarding this is
how your vendors define jumbo. In a single vendor shop
like Cisco, you may define 9000 to your end devices and
9216 to your switching to account for overhead. But
other vendors
Agreed. It doesn't happen often but every once in a while you see this.
Years ago I had two vendors interpret the RFC for VRRP differently on
the same broadcast domain. Complete trainwreck. Move along. Nothing to
see here
-Hammer-
I was a normal American nerd
-Jack Herer
On 5/29/2012
On 5/29/12, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 06:40:38PM +1000, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
I've often wondered about supposed downsides myself. Why is it that we
don't see the layer 2 MTU set as high as possible on Cisco devices out
of the box, but a relatively
I've had TAC chewing on this error for the past month. Seems that the DFC in
slot 2 and slot 3 are reporting the error. TAC's first inclination was bad
hardware, so it was RMA'd, however the error showed up again a few days ago. A
reboot cleared it and I haven't seen it since, but it's still
Hi all,
I've read through Chapter 7 of MPLS and VPN Architectures Volume II
regarding Multicast VPN.
I never saw any mention of enabling the ipv4 mdt address family under bgp.
Is this ipv4 mdt af something altogether different than what is spoken of in
the book ? .or did I totally miss
On 29/05/12 15:55, Aaron wrote:
Hi all,
I've read through Chapter 7 of MPLS and VPN Architectures Volume II
regarding Multicast VPN.
I never saw any mention of enabling the ipv4 mdt address family under bgp.
Is this ipv4 mdt af something altogether different than what is spoken of in
the
Thanks Arie, I'm trying to accomplish in ios xr 4.1.2 - got link for that ?
-Original Message-
From: Arie Vayner (avayner) [mailto:avay...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:15 AM
To: Aaron; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] m-vpn
Aaron,
The MDT BGP address family
Usually, the starting point would be here:
http://www.cisco.com/cisco/web/psa/default.html?mode=prod
The specific page you are looking for is here:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/docs/routers/asr9000/software/asr9k_r
4.1/multicast/configuration/guide/mc41mcst.html#wp2631058
Please help me on a side-note
I've been wondering, what makes ssm ssm? I mean here's what I was
seeing
I have several mcast groups in my network currently...all 239.x.x.x
Thus far my mcast network was simply ...
Mcast xmitter--asr9kasr9k--mcast rcvr
That's
On 29/05/12 17:14, Aaron wrote:
Please help me on a side-note
I've been wondering, what makes ssm ssm? I mean here's what I was
seeing
SSM is configurable on a range of groups. Effectively, all it means is
don't make *,g joins for this group. s,g joins are made via other
methods,
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 06:23:45 PM Phil Mayers wrote:
No. SSM *is* sparse-mode. It's just sparse mode without
*,g joins.
In NG-MVPN (or BGP-MVPN, as Juniper call it nowadays), you
can deploy an MVPN tree as either SPT-only, or RPT-SPT, when
running PIM-SM.
In NG-MVPN, BGP replaces PIM for
On 5/29/12 16:03 , Jason Lixfeld wrote:
I've had TAC chewing on this error for the past month. Seems that the DFC in
slot 2 and slot 3 are reporting the error. TAC's first inclination was bad
hardware, so it was RMA'd, however the error showed up again a few days ago.
A reboot cleared it
Hi Piotr,
Both linecards (including DFCs), chassis and power supplies were replaced.
The only common element left is the Supervisor. The standby Supervisor was
replaced on a prior RMA, but there has been no (obvious) indication on either
the part of TAC or myself to suggest the active
In enterprise WAN environments, you could use BGP as the sole routing protocol,
if you treat each individual site as a separate AS (private AS numbers
offcourse).
Depending on the size / complexity of the campus, you might still need an IGP
within the campus. Again you could treat each
Hi all , i have CPE that terminates VDSL connection with a downstream of 24M
The CPE receives Multicast streams to serve two televisions
The network is all layer 2 connections
When serving one television , all is working good but when two are in service
the picture is stuck as if the multicast
On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 03:34:04 AM Andrew Jones wrote:
In enterprise WAN environments, you could use BGP as the
sole routing protocol, if you treat each individual site
as a separate AS (private AS numbers offcourse).
Depending on the size / complexity of the campus, you
might still
On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 07:15:28 AM Mohammad Khalil
wrote:
Hi all , i have CPE that terminates VDSL connection with
a downstream of 24M The CPE receives Multicast streams
to serve two televisions The network is all layer 2
connections
When serving one television , all is working good but
29 matches
Mail list logo
