Hi,
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:05:55AM +, Phil Mayers wrote:
I'm sure there are topologies in which mst is suitable
Textbook topologies, obviously :-) - where you sit down, design your
network, implement it, *and then go elsewhere* instead of modifying
your network on-the-fly.
gert
--
On (2012-11-28 09:55 +0100), Gert Doering wrote:
I'm sure there are topologies in which mst is suitable
Textbook topologies, obviously :-) - where you sit down, design your
network, implement it, *and then go elsewhere* instead of modifying
your network on-the-fly.
We've ran MST as long
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:13:02AM +0200, Saku Ytti wrote:
But for completely other (numerous) reasons, we're ditching whole L2 and
rocking MPLS end to end.
Yeah. We see to it that our L2 STP domains are very small (if we can
avoid it, no more than 4-6 devices each), and we need to go
On 11/28/2012 09:13 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2012-11-28 09:55 +0100), Gert Doering wrote:
I'm sure there are topologies in which mst is suitable
Textbook topologies, obviously :-) - where you sit down, design your
network, implement it, *and then go elsewhere* instead of modifying
your
Hi,
We use MSTP with VTPv3. It's quite good if your topology is simple but you have
a lot of VLANs. Before we used a lot of STP instances, now we use two of them:)
Also on the Cisco 2960 series platform you have an STP instance limit of 128.
Br,
Gabor
-Original Message-
From:
Hi,
we use me3400 for ftth customers with redundant connections and hsrp v2 as a
first hop redundancy solution.
Sadly only glbp seems to be supported for ipv6 currently. We would like to
have hsrp to be able to track the upstream interface, reachability of default
route etc...
Does anybody
I see now. So you are testing hierarchical vpls with access pw terminated in
bridge domain right?
What I didn't get is from where to where are you trying to ping
Is it between the access-pw and the bundle interface within the bridge
domain or across the vpls?
The outputs below looked alright
Just
we use me3400 for ftth customers with redundant connections and hsrp v2 as a
first hop redundancy solution.
Sadly only glbp seems to be supported for ipv6 currently. We would like to
have hsrp to be able to track the upstream interface, reachability of default
route etc...
Does
Those were our same exact reasons as well. We were supporting multiple
tenants and had a need for a large number of VLANs on the campus. The 3560s
also had that 128 STP instance limit, and we were fast approaching it. We
knocked it down to about 10 MST instances, giving us some flexibility as
Hi Group,
We've had a complaint from a customer that their security license on a
1941K9 is showing as Right To Use when they are expecting it to show
Permanent:
Index 2 Feature: securityk9
Period left: Life time
License Type: RightToUse
License State: Active,
On 28/11/2012 10:52 PM, Steve McCrory wrote:
Hi Group,
We've had a complaint from a customer that their security license on a
1941K9 is showing as Right To Use when they are expecting it to show
Permanent:
Index 2 Feature: securityk9
Period left: Life time
License Type:
Hi Reuben,
Thanks for the information.
So essentially, as long as we have evidence that we purchased the
license (distributor should be able to provide this) then we are covered
for using an RTU license?
Steven
-Original Message-
From: Reuben Farrelly [mailto:reuben-cisco-...@reub.net]
All ours say
Index 2 Feature: securityk9
Period left: Life time
License Type: Permanent
License State: Active, In Use
License Count: Non-Counted
License Priority: Medium
On 28 November 2012 11:52, Steve McCrory smccr...@gcicom.net wrote:
Hi Group,
Reuben
How do I activate a RightToUse licence, I have only ever used the permanent
process before.
Thanks
Sledge
On 28 November 2012 12:23, Reuben Farrelly reuben-cisco-...@reub.netwrote:
On 28/11/2012 10:52 PM, Steve McCrory wrote:
Hi Group,
RightToUse (RTU) license are licenses that
Hi Group,
We've had a complaint from a customer that their security license on a
1941K9 is showing as Right To Use when they are expecting it to show
Permanent:
Index 2 Feature: securityk9
Period left: Life time
License Type: RightToUse
License
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone run 1000BASE-LX/10GBASE-LR 1310nm optics over a ~10km Corning
LEAF G.655 span?
I understand this fiber is not optimized for such usage, but what is
the real-world behaviour? I'm having a hard time finding hard data.
Right to use means they just turned on eval mode and let it go to honor
mode. If they had installed an actual license, it would show perm.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Brian Turnbow b.turn...@twt.it wrote:
Hi Group,
We've had a complaint from a customer that their security license
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 03:22:27PM -0500, Chuck Church wrote:
Just curious, is the VLAN mapping to instances the big issue you guys have
with MST? In our deployments we used pretty large ranges to cover growth,
and mapped purposes such as L2-only VLANs (no SVI), servers, users, VoIP,
etc into
Hi,
Is it possible to tune metric on links in ring to get the most nodes on the
ring protected by the LFA?
RFC 5286
3.2. Node-Protecting Alternate Next-Hops
For an alternate next-hop N to protect against node failure of a
primary neighbor E for destination D, N must be loop-free with
So are you saying that the distributor has not installed any license at
all as they are pretty adamant that they have and the Cisco EULA seems
to suggest that a RTU license is valid as long as you do actually
purchase a license
From: Blake Dunlap [mailto:iki...@gmail.com]
Sent: 28 November
On (2012-11-28 18:24 +0100), Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
Is it possible to tune metric on links in ring to get the most nodes on the
ring protected by the LFA?
It's pretty easy to see how many boxes will be protected by just pen and
paper. Just cross out link, and see if you'd return traffic back.
On (2012-11-28 19:44 +0200), Saku Ytti wrote:
P1
|
R1-R2-R3
| |
R5R4
Ir R5 - R4 gets outage, R5 does not have LFA to P1, as R4 would send
towards R5.
Uhh. If R5-R1 gets outage, I should have written.
--
++ytti
___
Hi Group,
I've been asked to help build a new MPLS core and I'm looking for opinions on
using the ME3800X devices in the core.
Basically the core would be BGP-free and I'm considering the ME3800X due to its
10Gb capability, forwarding performance and attractive price. All the
intelligence and
Dell FTOS has PVST on our Force10 switches. I won't claim familiarity with it
or differences to Cisco PVST+ as I don't work in the F10 group, but I know it's
there. I can find a Dell F10 contact for you if you have questions about it.
Interoperability testing has been done and documented here:
I too am a Dell network geek. I've supported Force10 S4810s being installed
into a RPVST+ environment and it was painless. The doc does a very good job
of explaining corner cases people might be concerned about.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:36 PM, vinny_abe...@dell.com wrote:
Dell FTOS has PVST
Hi
We're planning a network of a couple of thousand remote sites connecting
with PPP to a central router (we're thinking a Cisco ASR 1002-X). For
most sites we can get ethernet to the central router and can use PPPoE
but for several hundred we have to go via a third party's layer 3
network,
The main issue would be that a single L2TP tunnel would hash to a single
uplink, and would never load share across different uplinks.
What you most likely would have to do is to have multiple IP addresses on the
LAC and LNS (loopbacks...), and route them through different links.
The LAC can
Hi Arie
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 08:06:31PM +, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:
The main issue would be that a single L2TP tunnel would hash to a
single uplink, and would never load share across different uplinks.
So if I understand correctly, the load sharing between LAC and LNS is
simply a
my experience with FTOS is pre-Dell so things may have changed since.
FTOS- RSTP is a *single-instance* of spanning tree for all vlans - definitely
not what I would deploy.
Cisco R-PVST is *per-vlan* and juniper, foundry, extreme do the same.
FTOS and Cisco PVST work fine
FTOS PVST and Cisco
Randy is correct about FTOS and convergence. The implication of per vlan
topology convergence is an engineering matter which has yet to bubble up
to management here as a concern worth addressing.
It's clearly highly relevant in some environments, but Dell is gaining
market share with the STP
There are a variety of reasons I won't touch or recommend the Dell switch
gear. Some of which include lack of rpvst, horrible management interface
when trying to troubleshoot (try finding mac address tables, etc), poor
documentation (or even deliberate misinformation) of important specs like
Can anyone shed some light on the Level 3 issues ? I see the Level3
NTT interchange is experiencing issues, anyone else having problems?
Miek
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
On 11/28/2012 5:38 PM, Bernie wrote:
It's clearly highly relevant in some environments, but Dell is gaining
market share with the STP functioning as-is. While I can bring discussions
like this to management attention, the system is set up to listen to the
people making sales decisions at
You know, this is probably a question that could be directed to nanog.. I
haven't noticed anything here but I have them in a more secondary capacity.
Thanks
Scott
On Nov 28, 2012, at 7:23 PM, harbor235 harbor...@gmail.com wrote:
Can anyone shed some light on the Level 3 issues ? I see the
34 matches
Mail list logo
