Hello Caillin,
We have also seen some issues with the ASR901 QoS
In fact the config is very restricting at the moment..
What I know for sure is that the ingress cos markings are copied to the
MPLS EXP bit, so you can try to remark your customer traffic at the other
end
George
On Wed, Oct 10,
Hi Arie,
Below is the desired excerpt. We can't see the VRF config being applied to
the interfaces but its visible in show ip int virtual-access. I have
tried two different way in RADIUS attributes but the results are the same.
LNS#show ppp all
Interface/ID OPEN+ Nego* Fail- StagePeer
Il 10/10/2012 2.52, Ian Henderson wrote:
* Having two methods ensures that if one method breaks, we still have useful
logs/archives. This is particularly nice in our environment
I particularly appreciate this design principle.
Please consider doing a periodic SCP of important files which
On 10/10/2012 01:52 AM, Ian Henderson wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm working on updating our base templates using some more modern
features and am considering if IOS' built in configuration
archiver/change logger have a place in our network.
Is anybody using the config archiver in addition to/in place
On 10/10/2012, at 8:16 PM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
TBH I'm not really sure what you're asking.
Yep, sorry was a bit of a brain dump. :) Thanks for your comments. This
basically tells me that archive doesn't have any super awesome features that we
don't already get from
Hi all,
I want to know in what condition this error occurres when defining ip
addresses on interfaces? I test many IP addresses and diverse error
messages happens which I don't know the reasons. Is there any reference
which I could find the invalid pattern of ip addresses?
some of my tests are:
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 04:08:03PM +0330, h bagade wrote:
I want to know in what condition this error occurres when defining ip
addresses on interfaces? I test many IP addresses and diverse error
messages happens which I don't know the reasons. Is there any reference
which I could find
Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:16:09AM +0100, Phil Mayers:
* With a sizeable RANCID installation, collection interval needs to
be pushed out to 4 hours plus, which means we could miss changes
within the interval.
Really? We use a home-grown system for this, and back up 1200 devices
every hour.
All,
FYI, yet another occurrence of Cisco TAC coming to the conclusion that
yes it does not work, and no, they dont have to fix it, because they
have decided that it is not supported.
Is it an unreasonable expectation to expect product features to
interoperate unless clearly stated that
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:05:50AM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
Is it an unreasonable expectation to expect TAC support contracts to
deliver results and resolutions instead of yet another thing we wont
support?
But they *do* deliver results. Documentation gets updated all the time,
Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:05:50AM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
Is it an unreasonable expectation to expect TAC support contracts to
deliver results and resolutions instead of yet another thing we wont
support?
But they *do* deliver results. Documentation gets updated
Of all things Cisco is good at, pissing of its users ranks #1 on the list.
I'm hoping that their move to concentrate on switching and core business rather
than eg digital cameras (what were they thinking with that? Did John Chambers
ask his PA to buy a flip video and it was misheard?) will
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:10:55AM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
Of all things Cisco is good at, pissing of its users ranks #1 on the list.
*That* seems to be what they really mastered in the last 10 years.
(Now what I'm not sure is what the piss-of-customers-BU is competing with,
seeems I
I can see this platform supports etherchannel, but does it support lacp?
I think now, but wanted to check
Thanks
Darren
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Multiple Vulnerabilities in the Cisco WebEx Recording Format Player
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20121010-webex
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2012 October 10 16:00 UTC (GMT
I'm about to setup MPLS and MPLS VPN on a set of 6500 VSS systems shortly. I
was wondering if there are any obvious gotchas that I should be concerned
about. We're not doing MPLS-TE or QoS here, pretty straight forward setup.
Got this error message configuring BGP for a VRF before 'mpls ip' was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Multiple Vulnerabilities in Cisco Firewall Services Module
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20121010-fwsm
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2012 October 10 16:00 UTC (GMT)
- --
Summary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Multiple Vulnerabilities in Cisco ASA 5500 Series Adaptive Security
Appliances and Cisco Catalyst 6500 Series ASA Services Module
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20121010-asa
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2012 October 10 16:00 UTC (GMT
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
(Now what I'm not sure is what the piss-of-customers-BU is competing with,
seeems I don't understand the grand master plan yet)
JTAC? :P
--Daniel.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
On 10/10/12 15:48, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:05:50AM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
Is it an unreasonable expectation to expect TAC support contracts to
deliver results and resolutions instead of yet another thing we wont
support?
But they *do* deliver results.
So basically your PPP connections are in the global routing table...
What is the profile you are downloading from RADIUS (debug radius) for them?
You most likely should be downloading the ip vrf forwarding U downstream D
command using the RADIUS attribute lcp:interface-config=ip vrf forwarding U
Anyone else seeing these on 3750X's from time to time? Running 15.0(1)SE3
Oct 9 19:49:25.728 PDT: %IPC-2-INVALIDZONE: Invalid IPC Zone 0x6000.
-Traceback= 545BFCz CDDE70z 5AD80z 5AE68z 284DA88z 28478FCz
Peter Kranz
Founder/CEO - Unwired Ltd
http://www.unwiredltd.com/
Okay, so here's where we stand after working on this for a few days.
We have several circuits that are coming into an AS5400 that are getting
slips, whereas most of them don't.
Most of the circuits come in as T1 channels on a T3. Most of those don't get
slips, some do. We also have two t1
I could be smoking crack here so I apologize if I'm wrong but doesn't the local
Telco provide clock on all T1s that you can recover? Even in the case where
you're providing PRI service doesn't the local loop the carrier provides
contain line clocking that you can recover?
What am I missing?
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
boun...@puck.nether.net] Im Auftrag von Darren O'Connor
Gesendet: mercredi 10 octobre 2012 17:53
An: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Betreff: [c-nsp] 7200 npe-g2 lacp
I can see this platform supports
Thanks all.
Thanks Gert for your complete answer. It cleared the vague parts but one
still remains! what about ip address like 0.2.3.1 255.255.255.0! what's the
rule for this one?
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 04:08:03PM
Thanks for the tips, we'll have a play with some of the options suggested
around originating the default.
On 05/10/2012, at 11:52 AM, Anton Kapela wrote:
also +1 to inter-border router ibgp sessions over some other layer2
path/port pair/etc -- one should always have that, unless you can't
for
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lanyon [mailto:tom+c-...@oneshoeco.com]
I'm glad a iBGP session between the ASRs over a GRE tunnel was mentioned, as
that's exactly what we have running and I was questioning whether this was a
bad practice or not...
Thanks,
Tom
[dprall] It's the Duct Tape
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 23:55 +0330, h bagade wrote:
what about ip address like 0.2.3.1 255.255.255.0! what's the
rule for this one?
that one is in the book as well.
richard
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Hello Friends,
I have recently joined this group and working with telecom company in India.
I would like to know your feedback for Cisco 20 ports ES Ethernet cards, we
are using these cards for trunk connectivity with swich and fould lots of
limitation wrt QOS policy, its resources get
Hi Arie,
This is already in place and the virtual-access interfaces belongs to this
vrf and so do their PPP host router.
This routes are not visible in upstream vrt U which is great but these
routes do appear in Downstream vrf D so that is the reason they route
locally and doesnt go towards hub
31 matches
Mail list logo
