However, we also configure the routers with eBGP peers to originate
defaults into the IGP, presumably for faster convergence, although given the
design I really don't know that convergence will be that much faster.
So than you must also be using the bgp nexthop route-map or nexthop
On (2013-01-20 09:41 -0700), John Neiberger wrote:
This is sort of a follow-up to a question I had a few weeks ago about how
to configure conditional default origination in IOS XR. It seems that ISIS
default origination in both IOS and IOS XR behaves in a pretty suboptimal
way. I don't have a
Hi Pete,
Interesting point. I'll verify this tomorrow.
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Alex.
On Jan 22, 2013 5:55 AM, Pete Lumbis alum...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you have any ports in that VLAN that are not on the SIP?
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Alex K. nsp.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Pete,
Hi Oliver,
Exactly - not supported. It implies that *if it works (not on SIP-200), it
must be software'.
I came across this document before I sent the question. As it seems, that
what I'll use.
I'm looking for a document that say implicitly 'NBAR implementation is
software based' to be sure we
Hi Folks,
I know I mentioned this one on the list earlier
But I just want to put the rumors to the rest once and forever
So is it alright to configure the advertise best-external on all PEs under
the vpnv4 address-family?
Or do I need to be worried about some weird loop voodoo?
And thus
* say explicitly ...
On Jan 22, 2013 11:47 AM, Alex K. nsp.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Oliver,
Exactly - not supported. It implies that *if it works (not on SIP-200), it
must be software'.
I came across this document before I sent the question. As it seems, that
what I'll use.
I'm looking
Alex,
not sure what you're looking for. Not supported means you're on your
own, use it at your own risk and expect things can go wrong. It could be
switched in software in one release (which might be fine and serve your
purpose as long as the traffic stays below given threshold or it doesn't
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2013-01-20 09:41 -0700), John Neiberger wrote:
This is sort of a follow-up to a question I had a few weeks ago about how
to configure conditional default origination in IOS XR. It seems that
ISIS
default origination in
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 01:10:51PM -0800, Joe Pruett wrote:
i have a general question about the 12.x vs 15.x versions. i have been
running 12.4.25 on my 7206 vxr boxes and have been thinking of trying
the 15.x stuff. there are a couple things that i haven't been able to
figure out.
1.
On 22/01/2013 9:59 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Nobody knows what's inside any given IOS build. As a rule of thumb,
whenever you want to turn on something new, the specific combination of
hardware + software + feature pack that you have will not support it.
(Yes, this does annoy me to no end)
Group,
Anyone has seen something like this ?
+++
ASR1006# show facility-alarm status
System Totals Critical: 1 Major: 0 Minor: 0
Source Severity Description [Index]
-- ---
TAC tells me that is related with this bug:
+++
CSCud41702 Bug Details
IPS: After IPS config change, a false failover occurs with the ASA
Symptom:
Immediately after an IPS config change, an ASA failover occurs with the
following messages:
Nov 14 23:01:41
Yes I know. I'm looking for a best match.
I've already sent an email to my local SE.
The point is that I need something official that will state 'yes, it's done
by software, cpu impact is expected'.
Best Regards,
Alex.
On Jan 22, 2013 11:58 AM, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) oboeh...@cisco.com
If the PFC doesn't support it, it's done in software (or not at all). This
is Cat6500 fundamentals.
Q.E.D.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Alex K. nsp.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I know. I'm looking for a best match.
I've already sent an email to my local SE.
The point is that I need
I can tell you from internal documentation that this is what happens. Only
SIP-200 possesses the hardware to do these operations on the card.
Everything else will hit a hardware forwarding exception and punt to CPU to
see if the CPU can figure out what to do with it.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:32
On (2013-01-22 21:38 +1100), Andrew Miehs wrote:
If you have a full routing table, you don't need a default route.
If you don't have full routing tables, or want/ need a default route -
point it to your two major up-streams.
If one of the up-streams gets disconnected from core, only
Hi Andy,
Cat6500 is a distributed environment. Not only PFC (or any other one part
for this matter) is responsible for capabilities.
Alex.
On Jan 22, 2013 2:27 PM, Andy Ellsworth a...@dar.net wrote:
If the PFC doesn't support it, it's done in software (or not at all). This
is Cat6500
Hi Pete,
Thank you. By any chance, some of this may become public?
Someone asked me to prove that the vendor officially states that those
packets will be punted.
Alex.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
I think the documentation comes back to what others have said. If it's not
supported on the PFC then it will be punted to software. I'm not sure if
this fact is explicitly documented somewhere, but I'd look for general
sup720 architecture information.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Alex K.
On 22/01/2013 13:06, Alex K. wrote:
Thank you. By any chance, some of this may become public?
If it's on cisco-nsp, it's public.
Someone asked me to prove that the vendor officially states that those
packets will be punted.
see what Oli said earlier this morning:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Alex K. nsp.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Cat6500 is a distributed environment. Not only PFC (or any other one part
for this matter) is responsible for capabilities.
You might want to read up on the role of the PFC. If NBAR were to be
implemented in hardware, it would
Hi Nick,
Yes, it is clear. That's not the point. This list isn't *Cisco official*.
Alex.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Yes Andy, I know.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 07:29:27AM -0600, Andy Ellsworth wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Alex K. nsp.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Cat6500 is a distributed environment. Not only PFC (or any other one part
for this matter) is responsible for capabilities.
You might want to read up
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote:
You miss the mention of SIP-200. That's a whole different beast again,
the SIPs have local CPUs that can do things like VPLS, and possibly NBAR
(note that I have no idea whether the SIP *can* do NBAR, but interfaces on
Le 20.01.13 16:16, Hank Nussbacher a écrit :
I am looking to a freeware or payware tool that can take a bunch of IOS
configs and generate reports about OSPF and BGP as well as auto create a
network map based on the interfaces.
I looked at building a tool for this a while back, but
Please note that the rationale behind this question, was to verify the SVI
functionality for ports on SIP-200 isn't offloaded to NBAR capable SIP-200.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
I know I mentioned this one on the list earlier
But I just want to put the rumors to the rest once and forever
So is it alright to configure the advertise best-external on all PEs
under
the vpnv4 address-family?
Or do I need to be worried about some weird loop voodoo?
And thus advertise
On (2013-01-23 01:28 +1100), Andrew Miehs wrote:
If you loose a PE (and connected upstream) which connect back to your core
- you have a bigger issue. You need to make sure that PE stops announcing
your network blocks. If the PE is still default routing everything to that
upstream - what
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2013-01-22 21:38 +1100), Andrew Miehs wrote:
If you have a full routing table, you don't need a default route.
If you don't have full routing tables, or want/ need a default route -
point it to your two major up-streams.
We have static routes on the ASBRs that point to the loopback of the eBGP
peer, then we redistribute those statics into ISIS. If a peer loopback goes
away, the network converges pretty quickly to the other available
connections.
But thinking about that, it once again makes me wonder why we are
On (2013-01-22 07:59 -0700), John Neiberger wrote:
But thinking about that, it once again makes me wonder why we are
redistributing the default into ISIS. If the default already exists in iBGP
and the next-hop is in ISIS, that's going to converge pretty quickly. I'll
have to think about this
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 05:19:08PM +0200, Saku Ytti wrote:
Now all your routers see all edge boxes as default destinations and will
choose which ever is closest, in terms IGP metric.
If one edge connection to INET, your 8.8.8.8 will be pulled, and static
route won't recurse to that edge
Le 20.01.13 16:16, Hank Nussbacher a écrit :
I am looking to a freeware or payware tool that can
take a bunch of IOS configs and generate reports about OSPF
and BGP as well as auto create a network map based on the
interfaces.
Does Netbrain do what you're looking for? It's not the
mac address-table aging-time 14400
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
On (2013-01-22 17:50 +0100), Gert Doering wrote:
I'm still not convinced that this is more elegant than the to-upstream
edge routers just inject a static default route (pointing to the upstream
peer) into IGP. What's the benefit of the extra recursion?
If you point it at peer IP, it'll be
Hello group,
I need to install the CRS-8-DC-KIT-M on a few CRS-8. Basically this means
the change from the Fixed Configuration Power System to the Modular Power
System. I'm not able to find anywhere the kit installation guide. I wonder
if it really exists. I have queried the local SE and he was
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Antonio Soares amsoa...@netcabo.ptwrote:
Hello group,
I need to install the CRS-8-DC-KIT-M on a few CRS-8. Basically this means
the change from the Fixed Configuration Power System to the Modular Power
System. I'm not able to find anywhere the kit
Hi Guys,
Please could you help us with something information about
if is recommended configure GETVPN in low speed links? (ie isdn, dial up,
serial // 64Kbps, 128Kbps).
Exists any document with parameters about BW for GetVPN?
BR!
Henrry
___
Thanks. It seems theres something. I was searching for the KIT PN but no
luck
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP)
mailto:amsoa...@netcabo.pt amsoa...@netcabo.pt
http://www.ccie18473.net/ http://www.ccie18473.net
From: gawu...@gmail.com [mailto:gawu...@gmail.com] On
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 07:47:59PM +0200, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2013-01-22 17:50 +0100), Gert Doering wrote:
I'm still not convinced that this is more elegant than the to-upstream
edge routers just inject a static default route (pointing to the upstream
peer) into IGP. What's the
Antonio Soares wrote:
* Anyone has seen something like this ?
ASR1006# show facility-alarm status
System Totals Critical: 1 Major: 0 Minor: 0
Source Severity Description [Index]
-- ---
Temp: Center 0/15 CRITICAL
Thank you Hagen. Did they tell you what is the impact of this ? We are
thinking about not doing anything :)
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP)
amsoa...@netcabo.pt
http://www.ccie18473.net
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
On (2013-01-22 23:02 +0100), Gert Doering wrote:
And if 8.8.8.8 should ever disappear from the table for whatever reason
(even Google might have an outage), your default route disappears - I'm
not sure I consider *that* a very good idea.
I covered this contingency multiple times, including
44 matches
Mail list logo
