Basically it doesn't matter much whether you inject 8.8.8.8 or 0.0.0.0 from
all network edges and let IGP to find best path to nearest NH for that
route.
I guess the question turned out to be
What would be the best trigger for a default route advertisement either from
the edge(PE) routers or
On (2013-01-23 09:38 +0100), Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
What would be the best trigger for a default route advertisement either from
the edge(PE) routers or core(RR) routers.
-eBGP peer's interface might be reachable though the eBGP session might be
down.
-ability or inability to see a single
Yes I understand what you mean.
Right the single route is at least some notice that there's something going
on with this peer's BGP table and we better not use it as exit.
And if all falls apart than you can always use your nearest exist and hope
the doors are not locked if they are thanks to
On (2013-01-23 10:16 +0100), Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
What I meant to say is that is receiving at least this prefix and hoping
the edge works is all we have right now to make a decision whether to
originate a default route.
I still lack the BGP table/routing table credibility check before that
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
Say you have
PE1---P1PE2---INET
| |
+-P2+
PE1 default routes to P1, P2 in your scenario.
What if P2 stops being connected to PE2? PE1 still has active static route
to P2 and will ECMP half the packets
On (2013-01-23 23:00 +1100), Andrew Miehs wrote:
In your diagram the only router with an Internet connection is PE2.
PE2 should be the only thing announcing a default back towards your network.
If PE1 also had an Internet connection, then it should also announce a
default back into your
Cthulhu fhtagn for those who redistribute anything from BGP into ISIS,
...true story
adam
___
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 (2013-01-24 00:59 +1100), Andrew Miehs wrote:
As a side note, if you were to use 8.8.8.8 as your test you need to
ensure that you do not peer directly with this network.
I'm not at all arguing 8.8.8.8 is best or even good pick, one has to make
the choice based on personal requirements and
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2013-01-23 23:00 +1100), Andrew Miehs wrote:
Your provider (INET) should be able to announce a default for you if you
request it.
We don't. We advertise to our customers prefix to which they static route.
If our PE is
Joe Pruett wrote:
3. not really 12 vs 15, but i have never really been able to figure out
what the 'service provider' or 'sp services' feature set really means.
mpls seems to be only in the sp side, but lots of other features are
removed from sp compared to my ipsec variant. i guess by
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Multiple Vulnerabilities in Cisco Wireless LAN Controllers
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20130123-wlc
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2013 January 23 16:00 UTC (GMT)
- --
Summary
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Antonio Soares amsoa...@netcabo.pt wrote:
* Thank you Hagen. Did they tell you what is the impact of this ? We are*
* thinking about not doing anything :)*
The impact is that the sensor is no longer being polled, so you won't get
temp readings, and you have a lit
I have a Cisco 6506 Switch running IOS. Here's what I'm trying to do:
Set a group of ports that are isolated from the rest of the switch, one
of the ports coming in will be a trunk port carrying multiple VLANs. I
need to feed this traffic through this virtual switch to a bandwidth
shaper,
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:12 PM Chris Gotstein wrote:
I have a Cisco 6506 Switch running IOS. Here's what I'm trying to do:
Set a group of ports that are isolated from the rest of the switch, one
of the ports coming in will be a trunk port carrying multiple VLANs. I
need to feed
On 23/01/2013 17:20, Ross Halliday wrote:
You want 802.1Q tunnelling, frequently referred to as Q-in-Q. Basically:
Bear in mind that QinQ tunnelling like this will cause the switch to learn
all the mac addresses on all those vlans once more. I.e. once on ingress
and once while tunnelling. You
There is going to be a lot, as this will be carrying 90% of our ISP
customers traffic. It's the aggregation point for all our customers
connecting through the core to our internet routers. Would i be better
off using a separate aggregation switch, then dumping into the 6506?
Was trying to
Looking to get verification that the 2 10G ports on the VS-S720-10G-3C are both
full 10G to the fabric. I would also like to know that the QoS configuration on
these ports is independent of each other. I know on certain line cards it's in
blocks of ports, but don't know where to find this
On 23/01/2013 17:48, Chris Gotstein wrote:
There is going to be a lot, as this will be carrying 90% of our ISP
customers traffic. It's the aggregation point for all our customers
connecting through the core to our internet routers. Would i be better off
using a separate aggregation switch,
Hi All,
Can any one help me in understanding the following output of show inter
transceiver of Cat 6513. Why it is showing Volts = 0.00 and N/A in other fileds
sh interfaces transceiver detail switch 1
Transceiver monitoring is disabled for all interfaces.
mA: milliamperes, dBm:
I would guess that you don't have DOM support on your transceivers ?
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Farooq Razzaque
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:53 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp]
On 24/01/2013 1:29 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
One thing thats really biting me atm is that per-user aaa/qos support,
available in 124 mainline seems to have moved only to S train for 15x,
leaving me (again) with the interesting dilemma of which features on
which routers I want to continue using or
On 23/01/2013 19:40, Chris Gotstein wrote:
We use an appliance to control bandwidth and setup packages for our
customers, so it needs to be in the location it's at so I can feed it
multiple connections from different areas. It wasn't as big of a deal when
all our connections came through a
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:28:16PM -0600, Scott Lambert wrote:
Windstream is changing us over from our ATM DS3 to ethernet handoff
for DSL aggregation.
We are looking to get a different router to take the ethernet handoff
in another location. Our current router is a 7204VXR with NPE-G1.
23 matches
Mail list logo
