Hi,
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 05:57:56AM +, Arne Larsen / Region Nordjylland
wrote:
We have bought to new load balancers Netscaler SDX11500 from Citrix
In addition to what Roland said - if I remember right, this box is Xen
based, so you need to configure physical LACP channels on the Xen
I liked your email address. Very creative :)
DFC bootflash is used for the crash files. In the event of a crash the file is
written to it..
Do show platform hardware capacity flash” and check if you can see a bootflash
on the linecard.. You may need to raise a TAC case if there is no
Hi Waris.
On 2 October 2013 17:51, Waris Sagheer (waris) wa...@cisco.com wrote:
Hi Nick,
It would be 10/30/2013.
From: Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.orgmailto:n...@foobar.org
Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 4:38 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.netmailto:cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On ASR1k the MSS adjustment is done on the QFP (the ESP or in
hardware).
Again, this behavior varies from platform to platform.
Note: IPv4 only, for now. IPv6 may be in 15.4(1)S.
See http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nsp/ipv6/45433
/JF
___
Hi!
It's now November but AFAICS there is no S1 release available yet. Do
you have an updated release date?
Looks like S1 was removed again from CCO, because I downloaded it a week
ago and upgraded 4 (less important) boxes.
So, should I panic and downgrade?
ME3600#show ver | inc Version
Today I tested a Sup2T-XL and a Sup720BXL in the lab with full bgp feeds for
ipv4 and ipv6.
To my understanding the hardware capacity for the FIB TCAM is the same for
Sup720-BXL and Sup2T-XL.
Sup2T-XL output of sh platform hardware capacity:CAT6500-RC2TXL#sh platform
hardware capacity | begin
Christian,
The SUP2T-XL and Sup720BXL have the same FIB TCAM size. However the
SUP2T-XL has one shared pool of TCAM for IPv4/IPv6.
The Sup720BXL has a fixed pool TCAM for Ipv4 and one fixed pool for
IPv6. If you want to change this allocation, you have to do a config
change and a reload
It's not *necessarily* a buggy device. I meant to explain why could the
problem be anywhere.
That said, if negotiation is being kept at 1460, you possibly have a
link (like DSLs do) that has a lower MTU but the router doesn't know.
Just follow Juergen's advice: set MSS to conservative values on a
Your paste formatting got all screwy, but it looks like the Sup2TXL claims
it can do both 1M v4 routes _and_ half a million v6 routes simultaneously.
I've heard that from others, but also read the specs to be the same as the
3BXL. I wonder if anyone from cisco can shed some light on this?
On
As Rinse Kloek already mentioned, the Sup2T has only 1M entries, but a shared
pool of TCAM space.
Sup2T#show platform hardware cef maximum-routes
Fib-size: 1024k (1048576), shared-size: 1016k (1040384), shared-usage:
151k(155130)
Protocol Max-routes Use-shared-region
Sorry for the screwy formatting, here should be a better output:
Sup2T-XL output of sh platform hardware capacity:
CAT6500-RC2TXL#sh platform hardware capacity | begin L3 Forwarding Res
L3 Forwarding Resources
FIB TCAM usage: TotalUsed %Use
72 bits (IPv4, MPLS,
Thanks for the information about the shared pool of TCAM which explains
everything.
Sup2T-XL -- show platform hardware cef maximum-routes
Fib-size: 1024k (1048576),shared-size: 1016k (1040384),
shared-usage: 482k(493974)
Protocol Max-routes Use-shared-region Dedicated
class-map match-any Best-effort
match ip precedence 0 1
class-map match-any Priority-Three
match ip precedence 2 3
class-map match-any Priority-Two
match ip precedence 4 6 7
class-map match-any Priority-One
match ip precedence 5
!
!
policy-map ELA_QUEUING_POLICY
class Priority-One
I am seeing over a million outputs drops per day. This
is a 100Mb mpls connection that is shaping down to 10. Is there any way to
improve on my drops ? Do I need to up my queue
limit on this interface and if so, what would be a good number to use.
I’m not sure how to tweak this without
You are doing it right; all traffic will be shaped to a max of 10M; with
best effort getting at least 2M (or more, if there is no congestion).
class-default just matches everything that hasn't been matched already. In
this case you're matching everything and then applying child policies.
Within
I get 1 millions drops per day from the best-effort. Is there anything that
can fix this? Do I need to adjust queue depth and if so , what would you
recommend.
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 11:20 AM, Alex Pressé alex.pre...@gmail.com
wrote:
You are doing it right; all traffic will be
This is how traffic shaping works; by dropping packets. I would also add
fair-queueing to each of your classes, as this would allow you to tune
queues:
policy-map WAN-OUT
class Network-Control
bandwidth percent 10
fair-queue
queue-limit 128 packets
class class-default
random-detect
Good catch! Looks like this was done through the work of CSCuc36988 and is
on track for 15.4.1S still
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 8:24 AM, jean-francois.tremblay...@videotron.comwrote:
On ASR1k the MSS adjustment is done on the QFP (the ESP or in
hardware).
Again, this behavior varies from
There was an issue with the image file naming so it is being fixed and reposted
on CCO.
Best Regards,
[http://www.cisco.com/web/europe/images/email/signature/horizontal06.jpg]
Waris Sagheer
Technical Marketing Manager
Service Provider Access Group (SPAG)
wa...@cisco.commailto:wa...@cisco.com
If you are getting that many drops and it is unacceptable then you need to
seriously think about increasing the amount of bandwidth you have available.
Changing queue-depth may help, it will mean packets will sit in the queue for
longer before being potentially dropped. This would only help if
I just increased polling on that interface to see if maybe we are getting
bursty traffic that is filling the queues. It might be that we are filling the
interface and not knowing it because polling was set to 30 seconds.(LOL)
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 12:24 PM, Michael Sprouffske
I don't see that my link every really goes over 7mbps. Thats what has me
baffled. If there is still room on the link then why are we getting output
drops on that one queue?
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 12:18 PM, Tony td_mi...@yahoo.com wrote:
If you are getting that many drops and it is
Hi,
Have a couple more questions on this :)
1. I notice that a number of people use IS-IS rather than OSPF - Is there
benefits to using one vs the other?
2. Majority of customer tails will be supplied via vlans (On Carrier AGG's) -
Typically we would have two AGG's from two different carriers
Hi Antonio,
I had a similar issue and decided to reload the linecard.
pse_pogo_driver[281]: %PLATFORM-CIH-5-ASIC_ERROR_SPECIAL_HANDLE : pse[1]: A
sbe error has occurred causing data corrected. 0x12470007
I don't like to see any messages regarding single bit error (SBE) and even
less when it's
IS-IS can scale to a larger number of devices in a single area and
overall network. Really depends on how many devices you are talking
about. For smaller deployments it usually comes down to who is supporting
the network and what they are more familiar with.
So you are backhauling most of your
IS-IS can scale to a larger number of devices in a single area and
overall network. Really depends on how many devices you are talking
about. For smaller deployments it usually comes down to who is supporting
the network and what they are more familiar with.
I didn't want to chime into the
26 matches
Mail list logo
