Fortunately we didnt run the L2vpn for BGP.
You are running 4.3.0 in your production network? Any other critical issue
you found in this version?
2013/5/23 Jason Lixfeld ja...@lixfeld.ca
The one I was told about was CSCub89995. BGP with L2VPN/LDP BGP
signalling. Fixed in 4.3.1.
On
I try to run Multicast VPN on the ME-3600 back-to-back with the 7609. It
does not see pim neighbor. I tested on 15.1(2)EY4, 15.3(1)S and 15.3(2)S IOS
version. I used this configuration between 7609 is work.
test-co3600#sho ip pim vrf IPTV-M nei
PIM Neighbor Table
Mode: B - Bidir Capable, DR
Thanks Gabor,
I'm actually just looking for a document which confirms that either 'ip
arp inspection limit rate' will drop or that the next stage for these
frames is the CoPP/MLS Rate limiters.
I'm also looking at smaller platforms (e.g 3750) hence if 'ip arp
inspection limit rate' can drop I'm
I have MVPN running on ME3600-X. Most common things to forget is ip pim
spare-mode on loopback interface or ip multicast-routing vrf xyz.
Please post relevant config.
Fredrik Vöcks
Senior IP Network Engineer
On 23 May 2013 08:38, PlaWanSai pws_ad...@thaicpe.com wrote:
I try to run Multicast
Dear NSP,
I've configured a PPTP/VPN server (config below) to assign IPv4 and IPv6
both via local pool. Everything works fine if the client OS is either
windows7 or linux (ubuntu). But IPv6 part doesn't work for iOS 6 devices
(iPhone/iPad) and Android ICS/JB (S3, SonyXperia). It could be handheld
If 4.3.1 is too new to run why did they release it? I Love SE logic at times.
Sounds like he just said Cisco will deliberately ship defective software. I
would seek a new SE.
Jared Mauch
On May 23, 2013, at 1:36 AM, Xu Hu jstuxuhu0...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently I got the MP-BGP
Hi,
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:12:48AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
If 4.3.1 is too new to run why did they release it? I Love SE logic at times.
Sounds like he just said Cisco will deliberately ship defective software. I
would seek a new SE.
Oh, well, I can see that logic. There is so
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Jared Mauch wrote:
If 4.3.1 is too new to run why did they release it? I Love SE logic at times.
Sounds like he just said Cisco will deliberately ship defective software. I
would seek a new SE.
Why would you want to replace an honest SE?
Everybody knows you wait at
So everyone waits and nobody reports a bug for the first 6 months?
I summarily reject your irrational fears of new software. Software is
imperfect in all cases.
I have specific defects that are keeping me from 4.3.1, these also exist in
4.2.3. Are you hitting the same bugs? I don't know.
There was an SNMP issue where you had to sometimes restart the SNMP process,
but an SMU fixed that, I think.
I never ran into it, but I heard about it.
Sent from my iPhone
On 2013-05-23, at 2:12 AM, Xu Hu jstuxuhu0...@gmail.com wrote:
Fortunately we didnt run the L2vpn for BGP.
You are
Also be sure to use
ip pim ssm default
and
sdm prefer applications
By default MDT mroutes are 0...
I have tested this on 15.3(2)S.
Claes Jansson
Gästabudstaden AB
On 2013-05-23 08:38, PlaWanSai wrote:
I try to run Multicast VPN on the ME-3600 back-to-back with the 7609. It
does not see
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Jared Mauch wrote:
So everyone waits and nobody reports a bug for the first 6 months?
Obviously not.
I summarily reject your irrational fears of new software. Software is
imperfect in all cases.
It seems more imperfect shortly after release than after a while.
I have
I enabled on loopback 0. And I see this log on first boot:
38: *May 22 16:28:50.879 BKK: NQATM:
39: *May 22 16:28:50.879 BKK: nqatm_add_mdt_tcam_entry:Failed allocate
tcam hw handle
40: *May 22 16:28:50.879 BKK: NQATM:
41: *May 22 16:28:50.879 BKK:
Read what Claes said.
You must change SDM to applications.
Fredrik Vöcks
Senior IP Network Engineer
On 23 May 2013 15:09, PlaWanSai pws_ad...@thaicpe.com wrote:
I enabled on loopback 0. And I see this log on first boot:
38: *May 22 16:28:50.879 BKK: NQATM:
39: *May 22
Our deployment today is centered on 4.2.3. I'd like to see the bugs we have in
4.2.3 that are unfixed in 4.3.1 to be addressed so we have a clear case to move
forward.
- Jared
On May 22, 2013, at 11:13 PM, Xu Hu jstuxuhu0...@gmail.com wrote:
Any specific reason why u want to upgrade from
On May 23, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Jared Mauch wrote:
So everyone waits and nobody reports a bug for the first 6 months?
Obviously not.
That seems to be what the SE in the (now trimmed reference) was suggesting. I
understand not
Can you clarify by what you mean by dual-sup?
The 5k is single sup only isn't it?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:44 AM, manderson chief...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, we currently use a single sup design in one of our DC's and we're
playing w/a dual sup design for single homed servers in our other DC.
We're currently using Plixer for Netflow and now we're considering Lancope,
with a focus on anomaly detection. Looking for any experience/advice,
pros/cons with either, in regards to anomaly detection.
TIA
ChiefWFB
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
EVCs might do the trick for you. On the 6k/7600 it requires ES/ES+ modules
I believe. ASR1k and me3600/3800 can do it out of the box.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/cether/configuration/xe-3s/ce-ether-vc-infra-xe.html
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Simon Lockhart
The problem with the wait and see approach is it is a tragedy of the
commons approach. You're just outsourcing the effort to the cloud and
hoping others are more adventurous than you are. Eventually critical mass
is reached, and then even older code versions have the bugs, they last
longer, and
The 5K definitely only has a single SUP like Mike said...are you talking
about FEX's that are dual-homed to two 5k's?
Oliver
-
Oliver Garraux
Check out my blog: blog.garraux.net
Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/olivergarraux
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:36
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 12:59 -0500, Blake Dunlap wrote:
The problem with the wait and see approach is it is a tragedy of the
commons approach. You're just outsourcing the effort to the cloud
and hoping others are more adventurous than you are. Eventually
critical mass is reached, and then even
S
orry, dual sup meaning each 2k is dual homed to each 5k.
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.comwrote:
Can you clarify by what you mean by dual-sup?
The 5k is single sup only isn't it?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:44 AM, manderson chief...@gmail.com wrote:
Folks,
Is it not documented properly regarding SDM template?
Best Regards,
[http://www.cisco.com/web/europe/images/email/signature/horizontal06.jpg]
Waris Sagheer
Technical Marketing Manager
Service Provider Access Group
wa...@cisco.commailto:wa...@cisco.com
Phone: +1 408 853 6682
Mobile: +1
Hi Waris,
Not very much. But the 250 MDT routes are quite expensive since you loose
8000 ipv4 routes.
Any plans to change this in the future?
Regards,
Fredrik Vöcks
Senior IP Network Engineer
On 24 May 2013 01:21, Waris Sagheer (waris) wa...@cisco.com wrote:
Folks,
Is it not documented
Hi Fredrik,
ME3600X is an access platform so MVPN scale is limited and there is no plan to
change this in future. However ME3800X does not have this limitation.
I'll get the documentation fixed.
Best Regards,
[http://www.cisco.com/web/europe/images/email/signature/horizontal06.jpg]
Waris
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Blake Dunlap wrote:
The problem with the wait and see approach is it is a tragedy of the
commons approach. You're just outsourcing the effort to the cloud and
hoping others are more adventurous than you are. Eventually critical
mass is reached, and then even older code
Ahhh, gotcha.
I've got no experience with that as of yet. We're putting in 8 2248s
pretty shortly which I was going to dual-home for redundancy, but that
project is still in the early stages. I'd also love to hear what
other folks have experienced with this kind of setup.
On Thu, May 23, 2013
28 matches
Mail list logo
