On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:27:23AM +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote:
Scott Lambert lamb...@lambertfam.org writes:
It turns out that the telco is going to give the DSL to us via QinQ
rather than L2TP as I had assumed. I've been reading up on that
and it doesn't look too bad. I have not figured
This setup works if I strip both tags on ingress.
Yes that's how it's supposed to be done
The downside is that if do that I lose the CoS bits.
Is it possible to preserve the COS markings on ingress into a qos-group?
Than just use the particular qos-group on egress to set the COS markings on
the
Hi Aaron,
Wouldn't the tunneling of STP and letting CE switches to block out the
redundant paths an option?
adam
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
Probably better looking at the RFC ...however , duplex? Gigabit requires full
duplex. You can't have half duplex...
alan
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
On (2013-01-25 08:34 +), Alan Buxey wrote:
Probably better looking at the RFC ...however , duplex? Gigabit requires full
duplex. You can't have half duplex...
You mean IEEE 802.3 not RFC.
It's extremely hard to read, and often impossible to draw any hard
conclusions without having
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 22:03 -0700, John Neiberger wrote:
A few of us at work have been discussing autonegotiation in gigabit
Ethernet networks and I wanted to get a clarification. I know that on Cisco
devices with Fast Ethernet, if you manually set speed and duplex, this
disables Nway
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 08:34 +, Alan Buxey wrote:
Probably better looking at the RFC ...however , duplex? Gigabit
requires full duplex. You can't have half duplex...
Actually you can. :-) IEEE 802.3 claus 37.2.1.3 describes half duplex
for 1000BASE-X. It doesn't make a lot of operational
Hi,
Actually you can. :-) IEEE 802.3 claus 37.2.1.3 describes half duplex
for 1000BASE-X. It doesn't make a lot of operational sense, but it's
possible.
...you can have one repeater per collision domain ...sure...but then
wheres your performance gone. proper cables and proper kit ;-)
alan
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 09:54:54AM +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote:
So it seems 1000BASE-T cannot work without MASTER/SLAVE selection which
is one part of auto-negotiation. On the other hand 1000BASE-X can work
without auto-negotiation (AFAICT) but if Cisco uses this or not I don't
know.
There are some diffs between T and X 1G. T should not work without
autoneg(AN) (because PMA and PCS rely on AN). X should work without autoneg.
Maybe this links will help:
T:
https://www.iol.unh.edu/services/testing/ge/knowledgebase/1000BASE-T_PMA_Jul
y2004.pdf
X:
I am still wondering - WHY? Our cable guys were always handing over
ethernet tails from their SDH with speed nonegotiate, claiming their
equipment just doesn't support it (and it was Alcatel - where NOTHING is
certain). I've heard that it's actually true. Can anyone confirm?
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013
On 01/25/2013 06:47 AM, Christian Meutes wrote:
On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:01 PM, vinny_abe...@dell.com wrote:
Is there something that would prevent ARP from discovering these newly
added devices when the switch would be soliciting the network segment
for the MAC address for a certain IP? I was
On 01/25/2013 10:57 AM, Andriy Bilous wrote:
I am still wondering - WHY? Our cable guys were always handing over
Yeah, BT do this in the UK. It's inexplicable and frustrating. In *some*
cases, I've seen them present a circuit with autoneg off, then fail to
wr mem the config, so when power
I don't think it's technical TBH. I suspect it's just telco mindset -
force all the params to on/fast/full and it's better, right?
Virgin do the same thing.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Hummm BT does it here in sweden also.
And yes same complaints here.
Bästa hälsningar / Best regards,
Gustav Uhlander
Communication Infrastructure Engineer
Steria AB
Kungsbron 13
Box 169
SE-101 23 Stockholm
Sweden
Tel: +46 8 622 42 15
Fax: +46 8 622 42 23
Mobile: +46 70 962 71 03
On (2013-01-25 12:01 +), Wayne Lee wrote:
I don't think it's technical TBH. I suspect it's just telco mindset -
force all the params to on/fast/full and it's better, right?
Virgin do the same thing.
My employer does the same for most products and often in internal links.
It's
Hi,
I've tried to set up a VPN connection between two Cisco routers via a 4G
link ... after having it running in a lab (without NAT though), we moved
to config to the actual site routers and it failed ...
So now we went back to the Lab (GNS3 in this case) and tried again,
activating NAT on
I don't think the acl VPNNETZE matches what you want it to match.
___
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 24.01.2013, at 23:44, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
This isn't surprising. An me3600 can handle up to 4000 bridge domains
(http://goo.gl/0gz4n), each with their own topology, but only supports 128
rstp instances (http://goo.gl/RLQ05). While rstp has more flexibility than
mst, it
On 25/01/2013 15:54, Christian Meutes wrote:
Which flexibility do you mean here? Shouldn't RSTP be a subset of MSTP?
with rstp you can have a different topology per vlan, but you max out at
128 vlans. With MST you're stuck with 16 topologies per area, but you can
use all 4094 vlans.
Nick
OMG never mind; I'm an idiot and didn't see the entire config.
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Alex Pressé alex.pre...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think the acl VPNNETZE matches what you want it to match.
--
Alex Presse
How much net work could a network work if a network could net work?
On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
with rstp you can have a different topology per vlan, but you max out at
128 vlans. With MST you're stuck with 16 topologies per area, but you can
use all 4094 vlans.
I believe you mean PVRST and not RSTP.
On 25/01/2013 16:31, Christian Meutes wrote:
I believe you mean PVRST and not RSTP.
yep, correct - that should have been clear from the context. I don't use
vanilla rstp anywhere because single topologies just don't work with
nontrivial L2 configurations.
Nick
Hi list
I'm having problems with ntp after upgrading one Cat6000/Sup2T to
IOS 15.1(1)SY
After the upgrade it will no longer allow ntp clients to synchronize.
The ntp access-lists have not changed.
ntp access-group peer 5
ntp access-group serve-only 6
If i remove the ntp access-groups,
Remove AH from the equation and it should work. For example, change your
Transform Set to this:
crypto ipsec transform-set L2L esp-aes 256 esp-sha-hmac
I'm not sure but maybe NAT-T doesn't work with AH.
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (RS/SP)
amsoa...@netcabo.pt
http://www.ccie18473.net
Hi,
I have an AS5400 router, I want to used to terminate PPPOE sessions, I was
wondering how many PPPOE sessions can this router support? below is the sho ver
output;
ER-BRAS3#sho version
Cisco IOS Software, 5400 Software (C5400-IS-M), Version 12.4(11)T4, RELEASE
SOFTWARE (fc3)
Technical
This is an option. Thanks Adam, and it works with efp (si) command
l2protocol tunnel stpi tested it out good.
However, here's another challenge I'm up against... the fact that I have
Occam Networks DSLAMS (now Calixincluding Ross as he deals with this
gear and perhaps has suggestions)
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 03:57:04PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 25/01/2013 15:54, Christian Meutes wrote:
Which flexibility do you mean here? Shouldn't RSTP be a subset of MSTP?
with rstp you can have a different topology per vlan, but you max out at
128 vlans.
Which is not
On 25.01.2013 18:15, Antonio Soares wrote:
Remove AH from the equation and it should work. For example, change your
Transform Set to this:
crypto ipsec transform-set L2L esp-aes 256 esp-sha-hmac
I'm not sure but maybe NAT-T doesn't work with AH.
Tried, didn't change anything though ...
Tnx,
If I'm understanding this properly, it seems that CoPP completely breaks the
arp mechanism when using the 6500 for layer 3 routing. To effectively fix this,
I'd basically have to open my CoPP policy to all potential IP traffic going to
destinations on any SVI that would trigger an ARP discovery
I read through that original long thread... It seems that the mls rate-limit
unicast cef glean might be the appropriate workaround for me in my environment
to bypass CoPP. I do not have outbound acl's on the input interfaces of the
switch in this role, so I don't think I'd be affected by
mls qos is enabled. As others have eluded to, this seems to be related to CoPP
caviats on this platform.
Thanks for the suggestions.
-Vinny
-Original Message-
From: David Prall [mailto:d...@dcptech.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:45 PM
To: Abello, Vinny; and...@2sheds.de
Cc:
Thanks... It seems I'm observing this, however we're not using ACL's on the
vlan interface, but we are using CoPP which I think is causing the same result.
The problem is I'm hesitant to keep modifying the CoPP policy to adjust for
each VLAN interface on an ongoing basis. I think I'm leaning
Hello all,
We're having some issues with a 3925 and real-time UDP traffic bursts. The
bursts
are approximately 1500 packets long and are sent in 5.7 ms for an effective rate
of ~250 kpps (~375 Mbps). The steady state traffic on this connection is
10kpps.
Physical Topology
=
We have been using Cisco Catalyst 4948 switches with a layer 3 image in
our data center as core switches for a small network. Due to the nature
of the traffic on the network we regularly experience microbursts that
non-data center class switches, such as 3560Es and 3750Gs are unable to
handle
On 25/01/2013 23:33, Vincent Aniello wrote:
However, I am unsure of is if the comparing the shared buffer size on the
switches is an apples-to-apples comparison or if there are differences in
how the switches operate that make the smaller buffer on the Nexus a
non-issue.
N3K are cut-thru
Overruns on a software platform router are generally the router being too
underpowered for what you're pushing. Jumping up to an E series (you might
can just replace the engine, I forget which of the parts are modular) would
fix this I think in your specific example, or for a little more depending
Sent from a mobile device
On 26/01/2013, at 13:38, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote:
Another option is lightly shaping out from the switch if you don't want to
upgrade immediately down to a more absorb-able rate for the router
platform. You're probably barely breaking the threshold just
On Jan 25, 2013, at 10:16 PM, vinny_abe...@dell.com wrote:
Am I understanding the issue correctly?
I ran into those issues back in 2008 when the CoPP docs haven't been
that clear about the relationship between CoPP, ARP and the glean
HWRL.
You should mostly be safe when you enable the glean
Hello everyone.
I was wondering if anyone has seen this and if it is caused by a bug or a
security hole. OSPF process is in an endless loop of errors that I was only
able to fix with a reboot. I could not restart the OSPF process as it would
just hang for 60 seconds and then give up. This problem
we are running 4.0.1 currently.
-Lee
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Xu Hu jstuxuhu0...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems is a bug, which version you are using?
http://status.ovh.es/?do=detailsid=1152PHPSESSID=63f1ab780c97e64284a260a17828a53c
2013/1/26 Lee Starnes lee.t.star...@gmail.com
41 matches
Mail list logo
