On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:58:46AM +0930, Peter Koleff wrote:
>
> If you intend on using the X6748 on non-PFC3 Sup, such as Sup2T (PFC4), I
> believe you'll need to add a DFC4 daughter card, ie WS-F6K-DFC4-A, or look
> at C6800-48P-SFP.
X6748-SFP will run just fine on Sup2T with CFC. C6800-48P-S
Hi Chris,
Chris Knipe wrote:
> Sup2T/6T may be beneficial
If you intend on using the X6748 on non-PFC3 Sup, such as Sup2T (PFC4), I
believe you'll need to add a DFC4 daughter card, ie WS-F6K-DFC4-A, or look
at C6800-48P-SFP.
Regards,
Peter
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Chris Knipe wrote:
On 21/06/16 23:48, Saku Ytti wrote:
> soft-reconfigure inbound will save some memory. But you're not really
> missing anything, 1GB is just not that comfortable amount of
> control-plane memory for full-table routing. Biggest gain you'll see
> is going back to 12.2S series. But you need to plan to
Hi,
We're testing IPoE termination on ASR9ks and ran into a small, but annoying
issue.
Our subs will terminate on PW-Eth interfaces, that ultimately connect to a
L2 broadcast domain (access network, this is not something we can change).
So when there are two BNGs attached to the same broadcast dom
On 22 June 2016 at 01:01, chiel wrote:
Hey,
'> We have already relocated the CEF so tcam can can hold more ipv4 routes. But
> the problem the last couple of weeks has been the RP memory. At this moment
> its on 99% utilization of the max 1GB that the 720-3bxl can hold! On short
> term we can do
Hi,
We got a 6500 with a 720-3bxl running
s72033-advipservicesk9-mz.151-2.SY7.bin.
Devices is has to do some basic routing/switching with full BGP.
- 1x IPv4 full ebgp router with 585172 prefixes and a ibgp with 216827
prefixes.
- 1x IPv6 full ebgp with 28013 prefixes and ibgp with 30104 pre
Thanks for all the chip in guys :-)
Did read quite a bit about them on Cisco - just wanted to make sure / get
some real life confirmations.
Sup2T/6T may be beneficial (later) for 10G uplinks (which is -E only as far
as I read/understand), but shouldn't be required for a while - at least not
until
>> I'm not 100 percent sure how it breaks the path discovery, I would love to
>> test this too, as we have a few of these setups in place.
>
>
> The issue is that many routers, when the need arises to fragment packets,
> will send back an icmp 'fragmentation needed' message, *from the source ip
> a
Chris Knipe wrote:
> Will a X6748-SFP work on the normal 6506 (not -E) with a SUP720 or
> similar?
yes. On a not-6513, it can be put into any slot and it can be used for
either l2 or l3, although it won't support vpls PE. It's a dual 20G
channel card, which is why it will only run on slots 9-13
Correct the 10G Ports on the high density 24 port ASR920 models are not dual
rate.
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
CiscoNSP List
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:29 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] ASR920 (24SZ-M)
Hi,
Quick question...
Will a X6748-SFP work on the normal 6506 (not -E) with a SUP720 or
similar? I'm not too interested in L3 features, it will mostly be L2
operations on the units. If there will be L3, it will mostly be OSPF
distributing connected routes and receiving only a default, so not a
On 21/Jun/16 21:42, Mike wrote:
>
>
> The issue is that many routers, when the need arises to fragment
> packets, will send back an icmp 'fragmentation needed' message, *from
> the source ip address of the interface that was traversed*. So, if you
> have a p2p link with your end being 192.168.
I have never come across a command that lets you change the source ip /
interface of the ICMP messages on a cisco router. It usually chooses the
interface it was received on, which is the outgoing interface in the RPF
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.neth
I do have public Interface on that router but how do we tell them use
"Public IP" for ICMP unreachable?
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Mike
wrote:
> On 06/21/2016 07:37 AM, Nick Cutting wrote:
>>
>> We have a few providers in HK who deliver our public /24's via a /30 RFC
>> 1918 Address.
>>
>>
On 06/21/2016 07:37 AM, Nick Cutting wrote:
We have a few providers in HK who deliver our public /24's via a /30 RFC 1918
Address.
I'm not 100 percent sure how it breaks the path discovery, I would love to test
this too, as we have a few of these setups in place.
The issue is that many route
On 06/21/2016 06:07 AM, Satish Patel wrote:
You have a point, what if I increase MTP size to 9000 on that point to point
interface?
You mean, mtu size? Well, it's not likely to help you with anything,
since you are only receiving Internet thru it.
Mike
_
We have a few providers in HK who deliver our public /24's via a /30 RFC 1918
Address.
I'm not 100 percent sure how it breaks the path discovery, I would love to test
this too, as we have a few of these setups in place.
It is very annoying for other reasons, i.e remotely managing the router on
You have a point, what if I increase MTP size to 9000 on that point to point
interface?
--
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 1:10 AM, Mike
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/20/2016 07:52 PM, Satish Patel wrote:
>> This is weird question but i thought let me get opinion from you guys.
>> We have fo
I'm not sure that hundreds of lines or configs are required, just a snippet.
Are you using OAM per chance, have you checked what OAM says about this link?
Cheers,
James.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailm
On 06/21/2016 12:14 AM, James Bensley wrote:
On 21 June 2016 at 00:06, Mike wrote:
sh mpls l2transport vc detail
...
Last error: MPLS dataplane reported a fault to the nexthop
Output interface: none, imposed label stack {}
Preferred path: not configured
Default path: no ro
Hi Everyone,
Just tried inserting a 1G SFP into one of the 4 10Gb ports on one of our
ASR920's, and got the following error:
Jun 21 2016 14:30:13.036 GMTWA: %TRANSCEIVER-6-INSERTED: SIP0: iomd:
transceiver module inserted in TenGigabitEthernet0/0/25
Jun 21 2016 14:30:18.076 GMTWA: %TRANSCEIV
On 21/Jun/16 09:17, Gert Doering wrote:
> Only if used on BGP export.
Yes, I clarified this after Oli's message as well.
This is our issue - we need it for export, which is where it does not work.
Cisco promised to develop a feature for this back in 2014, but to be
fair, I have not followed u
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 08:45:06AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On 20/Jun/16 19:41, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> > Tags are specific to Cisco, you should be using a community instead.
>
> We use tags on Juniper quite successfully. Makes it easy to introduce
> static routes into iBGP.
>
> It irks me
On 21/Jun/16 08:55, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:
> this is not entirely correct:
Hey Oli.
There you are. Long time no see :-).
>
> BGP routes don’t have a tag in Cisco’s implementation, so you can’t match
> against a tag when a route-map controls BGP path advertisements. You can use
>
On 21 June 2016 at 00:06, Mike wrote:
> sh mpls l2transport vc detail
...
> Last error: MPLS dataplane reported a fault to the nexthop
> Output interface: none, imposed label stack {}
> Preferred path: not configured
> Default path: no route
> No adjacency
> ping mpls ipv4 10
25 matches
Mail list logo