[c-nsp] Multicast through Cisco ME-3600

2012-11-24 Thread Hitesh Vinzoda
Hi, I have recently noticed that routers running OSPF connected to two different ports and communicating via EFP's configured on Cisco ME3600 can not form OSPF neighborship. I cant see hello sent from other end while the unicast and broadcast does work as i can see the arp on both the ends and

Re: [c-nsp] Multicast through Cisco ME-3600

2012-11-24 Thread Reuben Farrelly
On 24/11/2012 9:16 PM, Hitesh Vinzoda wrote: Hi, I have recently noticed that routers running OSPF connected to two different ports and communicating via EFP's configured on Cisco ME3600 can not form OSPF neighborship. Cisco IOS Software, ME360x Software (ME360x-UNIVERSAL-M), Version

Re: [c-nsp] Multicast through Cisco ME-3600

2012-11-24 Thread Hitesh Vinzoda
HI Reuben, This is what i thought that we are on very early release of IOS. Show commands of OSPF doesn't reveal much, while the OSPF debugs reveals that they are sending hello's but neighbors hello's are not seen on both devices. This pretty much suggests that ME3600 is unable to handle

[c-nsp] RIPE 554, availability of required IPv6 features

2012-11-24 Thread Peter Rathlev
This is broader than just Cisco, but I'm thinking many people here have experience with other vendors' equipment. We have an RFP out for L2 aggregation equipment and have included the two sections of RIPE 554's Requirements for enterprise/ISP grade \Layer 2 switch\ equipment. One is a list of

Re: [c-nsp] RIPE 554, availability of required IPv6 features

2012-11-24 Thread alan buxey
Hi, Are my assumptions wrong? We're (in part politically) not allowed to require anything that only one or two vendors would be able to fulfill, i'm afraid that you may find only a couple of vondors who actually care about IPv6 - at least in such a way that they do eg RA gaurd, MLDv2

Re: [c-nsp] RIPE 554, availability of required IPv6 features

2012-11-24 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 02:32:59PM +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote: Are my assumptions wrong? We're (in part politically) not allowed to require anything that only one or two vendors would be able to fulfill, though something that lives up to one of the three points above shouldn't be a

Re: [c-nsp] RIPE 554, availability of required IPv6 features

2012-11-24 Thread Frank Bulk
You speak with your dollars... Frank -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:23 PM To: Peter Rathlev Cc: cisco-nsp Subject: Re: [c-nsp] RIPE 554, availability of

Re: [c-nsp] RIPE 554, availability of required IPv6 features

2012-11-24 Thread Phil Mayers
On 11/24/2012 11:00 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: You speak with your dollars... That's the basic idea, but it's often more problematic (as I'm sure everyone here knows). Purchasing and procurement rules are often imposed by other parts of the organisation, and can make it extremely difficult to