Hi Dale,
Only an internal one. This command was not officially documented in
the past, that's why no external documentation mentions this change.
Best regards,
Andras
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Dale W. Carder dwcar...@wisc.edu wrote:
Hi Andras,
Do you have a link to documentation/ddts
On (2012-08-29 09:33 +0100), Phil Mayers wrote:
That's an interesting idea. Are those counters well-exposed on kit
that supports WAN PHY?
Platform dependant. If framer is on optic, then almost certainly you'll
have no way to capitalize on WAN PHY.
If framer is on linecard, they might not be
Good morning all,
I'm stumped researching a slightly overloaded Supervisor 720 on one of
our aggregation devices. I've discovered that an access-list applied to
a SVI means denied packets are punted to the CPU. There's no log
statement. The packets have no IP options, TTL=64, DSCP=0x28 and frame
On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 11:17 +0200, Peter Rathlev wrote:
I'm stumped researching a slightly overloaded Supervisor 720 on one of
our aggregation devices.
...
Forgot to mention platform: WS-SUP720-3B revision 5.2 running
12.2(33)SXI1 Advanced IP Services. Traffic arrives tagged on a
WS-X6724-SFP.
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Saku Ytti wrote:
But you can get similar functionality and more from EOAM regardless of
framing.
Does EOAM detect errors on a link with very little traffic?
Anyhow, on for instance ASR9k we get this:
Configuration Mode: WAN Mode
SECTION
LOF = 13, LOS = 7, BIP(B1) =
On (2012-08-29 12:16 +0200), Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Does EOAM detect errors on a link with very little traffic?
EOAM are sent periodically regardless of traffic levels. So it'll detect
erroring regardless of traffic levels. However, it'll take longer to detect
it, the smaller it is. While in
On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 16:42 +0800, zhangyongshun wrote:
于 2012/8/26 23:43, Peter Rathlev 写道:
nat (inside) 18 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0
if this commmand match any real inside network traffic?
That would depend on the definition of any real inside network
traffic. The NAT statements matches all
A couple of ideas
1 to generate an ip unreachable ? try disabling them on the SVI
2 I remember something about acl and netflow (punts to create flows) but it was
sup-2. I'm not sure if it still applies to sup-720
Brian
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
What are your mls rate limiters set for, including the no-route one?
Jared Mauch
On Aug 29, 2012, at 5:17 AM, Peter Rathlev pe...@rathlev.dk wrote:
Good morning all,
I'm stumped researching a slightly overloaded Supervisor 720 on one of
our aggregation devices. I've discovered that an
On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 11:09 +, Brian Turnbow wrote:
1 to generate an ip unreachable ? try disabling them on the SVI
Ahh, interesting idea. We have an ACL drop rate-limiter in place:
mls rate-limit unicast ip icmp unreachable acl-drop 200 10
When replacing this with ... acl-drop 0 the
On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 15:22 +0100, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 29/08/12 14:35, Peter Rathlev wrote:
If we know that the punting is limited to 200 pps it shouldn't matter
too much. I've tried simply removing the ACL to see if the CPU overload
disappears. But why would 200 pps even start making it
This was actually useful, but only to the extent that I've determined that no
you really can't do that - show tcam int confirmed that using set ip vrf X
next-hop recursive Y is software-punted, and the combinations that do create a
hdw forward entry send packets into some random black hole.
I
12 matches
Mail list logo
