What I'm looking for is the Remote LFA functionality or a fix for CSCua51573
-that, from my understanding, was introduced with the safe harbor 4.2.3
code.
I was told the CSCua51573 is rather a FIB problem so it's going to affect
ISIS as well.
adam
-Original Message-
From: Jason Lixfeld
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
What I'm looking for is the Remote LFA functionality or a fix for CSCua51573
-that, from my understanding, was introduced with the safe harbor 4.2.3
code.
I was told the CSCua51573 is rather a FIB problem so it's going to affect
ISIS as well.
... and
On 06/12/12 10:13, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 11/19/2012 11:20 PM, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:
The command should be under the IPv4 address family...
Router(config)#vrf definition test
Hmm. TAC have been looking at this for me, and apparently the feature is
not present in the Advanced IP
I just noticed something that I thought was interesting. In IOS, at least
on the platform and image I tested, changing an interface MTU after an OSPF
adjacency is full will not affect the adjacency. So, if you need to change
a link MTU after OSPF is up and running, it should not affect routing.
Folks,
Long time no see! I'm back on c-nsp after a long hiatus with a question.
I'm having trouble getting NAT to work in IOS on some CEs (2821 and 3925
running 15). The site has a VRF for guest traffic and uses the default
VRF for corporate traffic. Previously they had a 3rd-party
Is there some sort of sensible meaning to those numbers located under the
ports column ? that mac address is reachable via the xconnect pw on vlan
100 svi
Aaron
3600#sh mac- address 203a.07c3.cf40
Mac Address Table
---
VlanMac
Interestingly, converted to vpls (manual) and now I see something sensible
for that...
noc-3600#sh mac- address 203a.07c3.cf40
Mac Address Table
---
VlanMac Address TypePorts
--- -
100
The 24 - 39 bits are generally not an issue if you are deploying in a rational
manner for the 6500/7600 platform.
Ie. Don't use addresses with those bits set. Your carriers won't so why should
you?
All of the caveats for IPv4 apply to IPv6.
As for the attack vectors against a 6500/7600, the
I find myself needing to specify a 10GB network tap solution, to include a
monitoring station or packet analysis software. Aside from trying to
Frankenstein a Wireshark system together, does anyone have recommendations
on good gear you've used?
My starting point is I'm looking at NetOptics for
I've had good experiences with Network Critical for taps. As far as analysis
software you can't beat OpNet.
-Original Message-
From: Bernie zenber...@gmail.com
Sent: Jan 3, 2013 3:23 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Network tap solution recommendations
I find
As Asbjorn said it's basically a Sup7-E with up to 40 ports. VSS is
supported in 3.4.0 but while testing I discovered that L3 MECs are not
currently supported. Slated for Q3 of this year. There is also a bug with
Multicast. It does not properly forward traffic when a downstream client
sends a
Hi All,
I have topology like:
LAN_A-(RouterA)(ASA)-LAN_B
Our requirements are :
1. IPsec VPN between the two sides
2. LAN_A goes to LAN_B will go thru VPN
3. On ASA, we want to have a Fake IP address(mapped IP eg. 192.168.55.0)
that will map to LAN_B ( Traffic from LAN_A)
NAT happens *before* IPSEC.
--- On Thu, 1/3/13, Samol molas...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Samol molas...@gmail.com
Subject: [c-nsp] IPsec VPN and Static NAT
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Date: Thursday, January 3, 2013, 8:55 PM
Hi All,
I have topology like:
I've had good experience with the ntap copper devices.
Their basic 10gig copper passive tap is uber cheap too.
http://www.networktaps.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=TO1-XX-LC-XX-K
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Duncan Maccubbin
duncan.maccub...@earthlink.net wrote:
I've had good
14 matches
Mail list logo
