Hi Waris, folks,
Is the ACL match in an output policy-map a hardware limitation or is there a
plan to add this feature in future releases please?
Or how do you folks work around this limitation please?
Thank you.
adam
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
Hi all,
Getting a number of errors on a couple of cards, tried flipping management
card, no joy errors are back. See attachement. Any ideas?.
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
views which are not the
On 02/10/2013 05:29, Waris Sagheer (waris) wrote:
BU would also recommend 15.3(3)S1 if you are planning to upgrade to 15.3(3)S
code base.
Do you have a release date for 15.3(3)S1?
Nick
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Hi Nick,
It would be 10/30/2013.
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: +1 408 835 1389
CCIE - 19901
Hi Adam,
Let me get back to you on this.
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: +1 408 835 1389
CCIE -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS XR Software Memory Exhaustion Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20131002-iosxr
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2013 October 2 16:00 UTC (GMT
Hi Mostafa,
Can you help with ASR1K L2PT behavior? What is supported on ASR1K?
Hi Chris,
I am copying Mostafa (ASR 1K expert) to confirm the L2PT behavior on ASR1K.
Just a side note from ME perspective, I would recommend using L2PT forward
command rather than L2PT tunnel.
Best Regards,
Hi Darren,
Is the issue still pending? let me know if you still need help to resolve it.
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:
Hi Adam and Darren,
Which software release you are using? EFP Link Bundling QOS is on the roadmap.
I'll get back to you on the exact release.
Best Regards,
[http://www.cisco.com/web/europe/images/email/signature/horizontal06.jpg]
Waris Sagheer
Technical Marketing Manager
Service Provider
Anyone running C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY?
We are running into some possible CEF bugs, and the response we are getting
from TAC is 15.1SY is buggy, you should be running 12.2SX.
I find that response unacceptable, but maybe I am in the minority. Feedback
on/off list is fine.
--
Tim:
C6K, SUP720 (mix of 3B, 3BXL, 3C, 3CXL), running 15.1SY.
We have enabled uRPF with ACL exceptions to support DHCP relay (plus mls ip
cef rpf hw-enable-rpf-acl). This works as expected.
If we enable CoPP, the ACL exceptions for uRPF stop working. I can't find a
good explanation for this, and TAC
On 02/10/13 18:20, Tim Durack wrote:
C6K, SUP720 (mix of 3B, 3BXL, 3C, 3CXL), running 15.1SY.
We have enabled uRPF with ACL exceptions to support DHCP relay (plus mls ip
cef rpf hw-enable-rpf-acl). This works as expected.
If we enable CoPP, the ACL exceptions for uRPF stop working. I can't
On 02/10/13 18:16, Tim Durack wrote:
Anyone running C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY?
Yes.
We are running into some possible CEF bugs, and the response we are getting
from TAC is 15.1SY is buggy, you should be running 12.2SX.
Yikes. That's quite a terrifying response, and yes, absolutely unacceptable.
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 01:16:04PM -0400, Tim Durack wrote:
Anyone running C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY?
We are running into some possible CEF bugs, and the response we are getting
from TAC is 15.1SY is buggy, you should be running 12.2SX.
I find that response unacceptable, but maybe I am in
Appears to have stopped working. Once CoPP is enabled, I no longer see
CEF-Drop-Suppress: Packet from IP via Vlan824 -- ACL check debug
messages.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
On 02/10/13 18:20, Tim Durack wrote:
C6K, SUP720 (mix of 3B, 3BXL, 3C,
On 02/10/13 18:32, Tim Durack wrote:
Appears to have stopped working. Once CoPP is enabled, I no longer see
CEF-Drop-Suppress: Packet from IP via Vlan824 -- ACL check debug
messages.
If you do:
sh vlan internal usage | inc Control
...to get the CoPP vlan, then:
remote command switch sh tcam
I was using 15.2 but now got 15.3 installed on my lab box
Thanks
Darren
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie
From: wa...@cisco.com
To: adam.vitkov...@swan.sk; darre...@outlook.com; n...@fluency.net.uk;
cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ME3600 QoS
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:59:03 +
Not tested on older IOS. Let me try the tcam test.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
On 02/10/13 18:32, Tim Durack wrote:
Appears to have stopped working. Once CoPP is enabled, I no longer see
CEF-Drop-Suppress: Packet from IP via Vlan824 -- ACL
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
What specific problems are you having, and which exact SY release are you
on? What mix of linecards/traffic?
Traffic: mix of enterprise and internet.
Linecards, nothing very exotic: WS-X6748-SFP and WS-X6708-10G-3C.
On 02/10/2013 17:28, Waris Sagheer (waris) wrote:
Hi Mostafa,
Can you help with ASR1K L2PT behavior? What is supported on ASR1K?
Hi Chris,
I am copying Mostafa (ASR 1K expert) to confirm the L2PT behavior on
ASR1K.
Just a side note from ME perspective, I would recommend using L2PT
forward
On 02/10/13 18:31, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 02/10/13 18:16, Tim Durack wrote:
Anyone running C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY?
Yes.
I should have been clearer here - we're on SY1, not SYplain
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Hi,
We are running into some possible CEF bugs, and the response we are getting
from TAC is 15.1SY is buggy, you should be running 12.2SX.
thats poor. we've had simialr for other devices. I point them to the open
caveats for the older version and the fact we were exposed to those bugs - and
On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 07:32:28 PM Gert Doering
wrote:
And indeed, I find that response unacceptable, especially
given that 15.x is supposed the new heaven of
well-coordinated and bug-free IOS releases...
Evidence, perhaps, that folk inside Cisco don't all agree on
the new strategy.
Dear all !
At the end of ACL 161, I have defined permit ip any any:
access-list 161 deny ip any 1.53.0.0 0.0.255.255
access-list 161 deny ip any 1.52.0.0 0.0.255.255
access-list 161 deny ip any 1.54.0.0 0.0.255.255
access-list 161 deny ip any 1.55.0.0 0.0.255.255
access-list 161 permit ip
24 matches
Mail list logo
