Re: [c-nsp] IP on xconnect?

a GRE tunnel and manage the box via the tunnel interface. adam -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Christopher Hunt Sent: 10 July 2015 16:04 To: c-nsp Subject: [c-nsp] IP on xconnect? I have a pair of 1841s with a ds1

Re: [c-nsp] IP on xconnect?

pwire-MNGT Alternatively since you have IP connectivity between the boxes I guess you could create a GRE tunnel and manage the box via the tunnel interface. adam -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Christopher Hunt Sent: 10

[c-nsp] IP on xconnect?

I have a pair of 1841s with a ds1 between them. I need to transport two untagged vlans over the T1 (VOICE and DATA). Right now I am doing it with the config below. The problem is that there is no management IP address on the boxes so I cannot diagnose outages without console access. Is there a

Re: [c-nsp] IP on xconnect?

I added another loopback and put an ip on it from the DATA subnet, but it does not reply to ARP requests to that address, presumably due to the xconnect. Any ideas? On Jul 10, 2015 8:11 AM, Lukas Tribus luky...@hotmail.com wrote: I have a pair of 1841s with a ds1 between them. I need to

Re: [c-nsp] Monitoring Routing Protocol Neighborships to clients

I work at a small shop and only have a few customer BGP sessions, but I am quite happy with http://snmptt.sourceforge.net/ . Using a hosts file we can name the hosts sanely and tune snmptt to ignore some noisy customers Cheers, Chris On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Nick Cutting

[c-nsp] me-3600 docs and drops

I'm reading the docs on my shiny new ME-3600X [1] and i see this: The switch supports IP routing and multicast routing for bridge domains, including Layer 3 and Layer 2 VPNs, using the SVI model. There are the limitations:... - You must configure SVIs for bridge-domain routing. - The

[c-nsp] access switch that supports per-vlan shaping

I'm purchasing some ME-3600x switches to be the LSR/PE on L2 and L3 VPNs but I need some good access-layer switches for single-homed sites, however, to hang off the 3600Xs. The switches need to be able to do per-vlan shaping on the upstream port so we can support 30mbps for customerA, 15mbps for

[c-nsp] xconnect on subinterfaces c1841 possible?

Hello all, I'm having some trouble getting xconnects to work on subinterfaces. I have two back-to-back c1841s with a T1 between them, both running c1841-advipservicesk9-mz.124-12. The following config, which uses two untagged ethernet ports works fine: ##working config## ip cef l2tp-class

Re: [c-nsp] passing ACL via radius - AAA Unsupported Attr SOLVED

In fact both ATTR_ID=1 and the lcp:interface-config#3=ip access-group 198 in methods do work. I was relying on the output show run int Vixxx full and/or show int Vixxx to display the access-group applied to the interface. This does not happen. Thanks to you and Ivan P. for chiming in. Once I

[c-nsp] passing ACL via radius - AAA Unsupported Attr

Gurus, I'm looking for a way to pass ACLs via radius. I'm running a 7206 with 12.4(9)T2 and Radiator 4.4 using a MySQL database. Authentication, static IPs, framed-routes, and even policy route-maps are all working, but not this! The docs seem to imply that is supported but I cannot figure

Re: [c-nsp] RES: Load Configuration From Flash

Cheers, Christopher Hunt ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

[c-nsp] [in/ex]clude CE vlans with QinQ

I'm searching for a way to optionally include/exclude certain VLANs for a QinQ link. I have a vlan trunk coming from a distribution switch into a core switch which is attached to a L2 Service Provider. I'd like to encapsulate multiple (some but not all) Customer (CE) Vlans from the

[c-nsp] ip sla echo vrf with df-bit set?

the DF bit using ip sla monitor. Anyone know if it's available anywhere or coming soon? Can anyone else think of another strategy? I'm currently running 12.4(22)T on a series of 7200VXRs. Cheer, Christopher Hunt ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp

[c-nsp] Hardware for 'managed firewall'

of] firewalls for each customer. -- Christopher Hunt ReachONE Internet, Inc. (360)456-5640 www.reachone.com -- Message: 5 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:49:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Dave Weis djw...@internetsolver.com To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Hardware

Re: [c-nsp] best PE-CE protocol

PE1 is a 7200 VXR NPE-1G, PE2 is a 2851 with 512MB , both running 12.4(9)T or better. For this customer, less than 10 vrfs on each PE On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 6:50 PM, William McCall william.mcc...@gmail.comwrote: What kind of boxes are you using for PE? How many VRFs do you have on the box?

[c-nsp] best PE-CE protocol

Given a customer with a 10mbps fiber connection into PE1 on a L3 MPLS VPN and also a backup ADSL link to PE2 on the same provider's L3 MPLS VPN, what is the best PE-CE protocol to use? I assume we could run eBGP over both links and weight them from the provider's end, as well as the customer end.

Re: [c-nsp] TACACs access filtered by device

We don't use it this way, but it looks like the linux tac_plus daemon supports authorization ACLs. See the line acl = dial_only at http://www.linuxcertif.com/man/5/tac_plus.conf/#EXAMPLE_TAC_PLUS_CONFIGURATION_311843h Christopher Hunt luismi wrote: Hi, We have here several Cisco devices

[c-nsp] MPLS MTU [override] bug 12.4(22)T?

255.255.255.252 ip ospf network point-to-point mpls mtu 1508 mpls ip no cdp enable end -- cheers Christopher Hunt ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net

[c-nsp] mulitlink ppp stays up but stops responding when any link is dropped

-policy output 2T1_VOIP_Policy ! interface Serial0/0/0:0 no ip address encapsulation ppp ppp multilink ppp multilink group 1 ! interface Serial0/0/1:0 no ip address encapsulation ppp ppp multilink ppp multilink group 1 Thanks a bunch... -- Christopher Hunt ReachONE Internet, Inc. (360)456-5640 http

[c-nsp] TelcoSystems EdgeGate 282 and Cisco 3560 10Full

on both gets me 100/Full on both (also expected). * 10/Full on both gets me nothing, link is down on both. We have put in a service case with Telco Systems to see if there is something we can do about it. Has anyone any experience with this hardware? -- Christopher Hunt ReachONE Internet, Inc

[c-nsp] quest for a CPE basic rate-limiting switch

I'm looking for an affordable switch that will do basic rate-limiting/policing. I've been half-heartedly searching for a solution for over a year. My boss settled on the Linksys SRW2008 :-\, but those brick constantly and can't be depended upon for anything. Basically, I have a vendor

Re: [c-nsp] quest for a CPE basic rate-limiting switch

switch into the FTTH CPE Switch and i'd rate-limit the ingress on my switch or the egress on my switch. Ingress rate-limiting is my first choice, but egress policing would be better than nothing. Christopher Hunt ReachONE Internet, Inc. (360)456-5640 http://www.reachone.com Jeff Cartier wrote

[c-nsp] [Fwd: Re: MPLS and IPSEC co-working (reviving an old thread)]

/WAN_and_MAN/ngwanearch.html#wp1000241: currently there are no mechanisms that allow for encryption of labelled packets. So I'll stick with crypto-maps for now. I'm definitely looking into the very interesting link you provided re: GET-VPN. Thanks again... Christopher Hunt ReachONE Internet

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS and IPSEC co-working (reviving an old thread)

still ping loopbacks etc. in the Default-IP-Routing-Table. I had it working in an alternate config, with a crypto map applied to the physical interface that is the tunnel-source. Any idea why this might be? Christopher Hunt ReachONE Internet, Inc. (360)456-5640 http://www.reachone.com Luan

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS and IPSEC co-working (reviving an old thread)

to understand the process. I've got the GRE Tunnels up and failing over but can't seem to understand how to encrypt the customer data. See attached configs. Anyone have any pointers? See http://markmail.org/message/lob467v2oxc6my5x for original thread onward through the fog, Christopher Hunt

Re: [c-nsp] VPLS and cisco

I'm not aware of the 7206 supporting VPLS (point-to-mulitpoint). They do supprt EoMPLS, which is a point-to-point design. -- Christopher Hunt -- Message: 5 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:39:48 +0500 From: Farhan Ali Khan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] VPLS

[c-nsp] multiple OAM loopback replies

I'm having trouble with one of our subscriber ADSL lines and I'm seeing duplicate OAM replies on their PVC. Anyone know what might cause this? OAM cells drop (and then IP drops too) when line is under load (3kbps). Here's the debug atm oam interface atm3/0.6208 output: Jul 23 15:31:29.514

Re: [c-nsp] Routing between VRF and non-VRF

You may want to look into route leaking: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk436/tk832/technologies_configuration_example09186a0080231a3e.shtml Christopher Hunt Garry wrote: Maybe I'm missing something here, but what's the right way of routing between VRF and non-VRF interfaces? I know

[c-nsp] TCP behavior under strict CAR rate-limiting

on the Cisco.Any ideas what else could cause low throughput besides a low tcp_receive_window? -- Christopher Hunt ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco

Re: [c-nsp] TCP behavior under strict CAR rate-limiting

bytes:405452 (395.9 KiB) 09.58.843085966 TX packets:552 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 RX bytes:32074 (31.3 KiB) TX bytes:448022 (437.5 KiB) Christopher Hunt Phil Bedard wrote: If the normal burst value is too low you may always be exceeding the normal burst limit

Re: [c-nsp] TCP behavior under strict CAR rate-limiting

values are not low? Christopher Hunt Antonio Querubin wrote: On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Christopher Hunt wrote: Sorry, The rate-limit statement that results in 0.2mbps throughput is: rate-limit input 1000 5000 5000 conform-action transmit exceed-action drop Those burst values appear

Re: [c-nsp] TCP behavior under strict CAR rate-limiting

). The server is XP Pro running an RWIN 65535 with scaling disabled. As far as I can tell, TCP slow start is not happenning. What other signs of Slow Start should i be looking for? Christopher Hunt bill fumerola wrote: [ i deleted some of this thread already am too lazy to search archives

Re: [c-nsp] TCP behavior under strict CAR rate-limiting

for checking this out. I hope to be useful to others some day ;-) Christopher Hunt bill fumerola wrote: On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 03:07:27PM -0700, Christopher Hunt wrote: I am familiar with TCP's concept of Slow Start, but my understanding is that it is the RWIN that is slow to start

[c-nsp] MPLS Label stack depth and MTU

Greetings, Given an all-cisco Layer3 MPLS VPN (RFC 2547bis) network what are the maximum MPLS label stack depth and Path MTU required? CE1--a--PE1--b--P1--c--P2--d--PE2--e-CE2 My understanding is there is one 4 byte label for the MPLS VPN (MP-BGP label) plus one for MPLS transport

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS Label stack depth and MTU

I should have specified that links b,c and d are provided by local fiber providers (PUDs, telcos, etc.) and are not under our direct control. They are adding the VLAN tags. Christopher Hunt ReachONE Internet, Inc. (888)820-7559 Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 09:01:05AM

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS Label stack depth and MTU

the L2 header and CRC is 18 bytes, then i need to add an additional 4 bytes for the VLAN tag which does answer my question. Problem solved! Now to convince my Service Provider to raise the MTU :-P Christopher Hunt ReachONE Internet, Inc. (888)820-7559 Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Tue, Apr 29

Re: [c-nsp] NPE-G1 support for jumbo frames

we run MPLS on the G-1 gig ports over copper. we use the MPLS MTU command to override the interface MTU. It allows the original L3 packet to be 1500 PLUS adds MPLS headers, technically exceeding the interface MTU. An MPLS MTU of 1512 allow for up to 3 4-byte MPLS labels (1 for PE, 2 for P,