Hi,
How embarrassing...
Model number: WS-C3560-48TS-S
c3560-ipservicesk9-mz.122-55.SE5.bin
interface FastEthernet0/33
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport trunk native vlan 33
switchport mode trunk
end
SW3#sh run | i dot1q ta
vlan dot1q tag native
SW3#sh int f0/33 swi | i
Dear Andrew,
Thanks for your comment. At the moment the bank is already mirroring the data
between the primary and DR sites and have now requested that we not provide any
communication channel through our network for this purpose. So we will in
effect be providing the channel for their
Il giorno mar, 09/04/2013 alle 15.11 +1030, CiscoNSP List ha scritto:
Hi guys,
Have a 7200(G1), with existing policy-maps (Working fine) - Today, tried
adding a new policy-map(telnet session), and the telnet session froze after
hitting enter?
(config)#policy-map TESTTEST enter(telnet
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Sanjeev Maniks midoa...@hotmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your comment. At the moment the bank is already mirroring the
data between the primary and DR sites and have now requested that we not
provide any communication channel through our network for this purpose.
12.4(6)T - Very old I know(Routers been up for nearly 3 years)...assume this is
a bug, and ios upgrade is the logical option? :)
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 7200 - policy-map foo enter causes telnet/console to
freeze?
From: ma...@lamehost.it
To: cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com
CC:
Hi I designed a topology and configured OSPF between PE and carrier CE , and
RIPv2 between CE - CEAll is working fine , when I changed the routing protocol
on one of the sites to EIGRP I no longer can access this sitesIs there any
thing related to EIGRP when it's running as the CE - CE IGP ?
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 07:00:00PM +1030, CiscoNSP List wrote:
12.4(6)T - Very old I know(Routers been up for nearly 3 years)...assume this
is a bug, and ios upgrade is the logical option? :)
12.4(6)T was already very old 3 years ago, and unless you know why, you
should not be running an
Dont you need to change both sides of the ce ce connection to eigrp?
Sent from a mobile device
On 09/04/2013, at 18:44, M K gunner_...@live.com wrote:
Hi I designed a topology and configured OSPF between PE and carrier CE , and
RIPv2 between CE - CEAll is working fine , when I changed the
Hi
I guess the problem is you are trying to redistribute routes originated in
RIP from MP-BGP to EIGRP.
My notes say:
In the case of non-EIGRP routes, redistributed to EIGRP in VRF, the PE
router generates an External EIGRP route by using the default EIGRP metric.
If no default metric exists,
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@swan.skwrote:
Hi
I guess the problem is you are trying to redistribute routes originated in
RIP from MP-BGP to EIGRP.
Where did that come from?
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
Hi I designed a
No , each site is connected to different PE , The rip routes are being
redistributed into BGP on a router , the other one redistributes eigrp routes
into bgp on the other PE
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 21:32:22 +1000
From: and...@2sheds.de
To: adam.vitkov...@swan.sk
CC: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net;
Let me back out a bit,
Assume a simple setup with two PEs running MP-BGP between them.
Each PE has a directly connected CE and EIGRP runs as a PE-CE protocol.
CE1--PE1--PE2--CE2.
Now in order to propagate EIGRP routes from CE1 to CE2 - PE1 needs to
redistribute EIGRP to MP-BGP under the
On 04/08/2013 09:48 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I would like to be able to accept both tagged and untagged frames on my
3560g. For the untagged frames, I'd like to be able to say these are a
member of some vlan - say 100 - otherwise I want to be able to allow
tagged frames from some
Hi Mike,
How about this scenario. Let's say you want a VLAN tagged on all the ports,
but also want different untagged VLANs on those ports (e.g. port 10 tagged
vlan 306 and untagged vlan 6, port 11 tagged vlan 306 and untagged vlan 7).
So native VLAN is out of question here since all ports would
I've started looking at this thread in mid-conversation, but I think that
original config is correct. If you have switchport mode trunk, the
switchport access-vlan ... won't take effect. It will only use the
access-vlan if the interface fails to trunk. If you are trunking a non-cisco
switch,
Dear Friends,
Recently i have faced a strange issue, BGP session with my UP Links goes
down due this log at UP Link side:
---
RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:Apr 8 13:10:54.818 : bgp[1044]: %ROUTING-BGP-4-MAXPFXEXCEED
: No. of IPv4 Unicast prefixes received from
The message is pretty clear. x.x.x.x is announcing more prefixes than what
your max prefix setting is configured for. Either the uplink side is
misconfigured or your max prefix setting is too small.
On 2013-04-09, at 4:13 PM, Ahmed Hilmy hilmy...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Friends,
Recently i
On 4/9/13, Damian Higgins linnew...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mike,
How about this scenario. Let's say you want a VLAN tagged on all the ports,
but also want different untagged VLANs on those ports (e.g. port 10 tagged
vlan 306 and untagged vlan 6, port 11 tagged vlan 306 and untagged vlan 7).
int
Are you counting on summarization to limit your feed, or are you
restricting the announcements themselves? Without your actual config it's
hard to guess what is going on here...
-Blake
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Ahmed Hilmy hilmy...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Friends,
Recently i have faced
max-prefix isn't an outbound mechanism, it's in inbound one. Setting max
prefix on a neighbor won't prevent it from announcing a zillion prefixes to
that neighbor, it will only prevent that session from receiving a zillion
prefixes from the neighbor where the max prefix setting is configured.
Yes, that is right. outbound prefixes are based on prefix-list filter that
has been configured.
Same prefix-list has been set on other UP Links and BGP session works fine,
really strange.
I have set max-prefix at maximum value because i am receiving full BGP
table.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:38
Hi Blake,
for outbound prefixes, i am using prefix-list filter which is identical at
my side and UP Link side.
for inbound prefixes , i have set max-prefix at maximum value because i am
receiving full BGP table from my UP Link.
entities of prefix-list has configured in this form x.x.x.x/y le 24,
Hello Jason,
thanks for your reply, i know that it clear but why this is happened, the
filter has been set on both side identical.
Kindly, find below log,
# sh bgp neighbor x.x.x.x detail | i Prefix advertised
Prefix advertised 2735, suppressed 0, withdrawn 1855, maximum limit 524288
#sh bgp
23 matches
Mail list logo
