Harry,
Thanks for sharing, but I don't see Cisco 1/3/45 nor Cisco 1/3/46.
The Brocade side is showing disabled. Have you tried disabling the Brocade
3/19 and 3/20 and then re-enabling them one at a time?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Harry Hambi - Atos [mailto:harry.ha...@bbc.co.uk]
We do have a good AUP that allows us to interact with customers on things
like this. We don't have a captive portal, and even if we did, I wouldn't
block over 10% of our customers! That would be a career changing move. And
even more so if there's no reasonable mitigation other than buying a new
Scott,
It looks like the Netflow monitoring of PRTG is only for 30 days -- if you want
to try something that doesn't expire, but only has the last hour of
information, look at SolarWinds' product:
http://www.solarwinds.com/products/freetools/appflow-jflow-sflow-analyzer.aspx
Frank
I learned from our SE today that platform feature development for the 7200
has ended, and that SB code train is going to be EOL very soon. The
recommendation is to move to the ASR1K.
This affects us because we needed both IPv6 PBR and DHCPv6-PD with automatic
route insertion on the same code
No, the FTTH doesn't allow broadcasts, at all. =(
Right now the ARP timeout is 480 seconds, CAM is 540 seconds, and the FTTH's
FDB is 900 seconds.
If the CPE had a reasonable ARP timeout, it would refresh the ARP entry for
it's default gateway (7609) upon the first CPE-initiated packet after a
Yes, broadcast traffic blocked from the headend toward the CPE.
The challenge is as you described, getting the CPE in the home environment
to ARP for its default gateway more regularly.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Rodney Dunn [mailto:rod...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12,
Keegan:
You're correct - without broadcast support, re-population initiated from the
7609 is impossible. Once it's expired, the FTTH access gear's design, which
blocks broadcast traffic, makes it impossible for the CPE to respond to the
broadcast ARP. The FTTH access gear never allows
There's no way for a smart L2 could compensate for the broadcast issue.
With a broadcast ARP the MAC address is not known, unlike a unicast ARP
where it is. So the only way for that broadcast ARP to make it to the CPE,
which is unknown, is to blast it out to all the FTTH ports.
The FTTH vendor
The order in which it fails (7609's ARP cache, 7609's MAC address table, and
FTTH gear's forwarding bridge table) has not yet been made clear, because
every since I started capturing state every 2 minutes, a week ago, it hasn't
happened again.
What you're describing should be all true. My only
VLAN per customer provides L2 separation/protection and would avoid the
problems we've had. Just I don't like the (lack of) scalability of (extra)
management of that approach.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On
07:47, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
Keegan:
You're correct - without broadcast support, re-population initiated from
the
7609 is impossible. Once it's expired, the FTTH access gear's design,
which
blocks broadcast traffic, makes it impossible for the CPE to respond to
the
I'm confused
Gert, you couldn't be more insightful: I did a software upgrade of the 7609
a few weeks ago, which led our helpdesk to raise this issue to me.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@greenie.muc.de]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:54 AM
To: Frank Bulk - iName.com
Cc
--
Global 300
no vlan age other than global age configured
These may also be causing the troubles you are seeing. You may want to
increase these timers to keep the SUP and MFSC aging closer to in-sync.
- Jared
On Jan 3, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
The 7609
about ARP expiration makes sense.
Thanks,
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Rodney Dunn [mailto:rod...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 8:01 PM
To: frnk...@iname.com
Cc: 'Keegan Holley'; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ARP strangeness
On 1/3/11 11:13 PM, Frank Bulk
The 7609 does stop ARPing after receiving a reply from the CPE, but the 7609
ARPs again 7 minutes later. One person told me off-list that Cisco doesn't
expire an ARP entry before checking its ARP entries by doing an ARP request.
Since ARP timeout is set for 8 minutes, perhaps Cisco's approach is
Would this apply to the 3750 Metro, too?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 12:28 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] c3750x upgrade to
We ended marking those VLAN numbers as unavailable, and if your transport
provider should be to use VLAN translation/re-tagging to accommodate your
environment.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jason
M(L)PPP is not an option
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Michael K. Smith - Adhost [mailto:mksm...@adhost.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 4:27 PM
To: frnk...@iname.com; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Bridging 802.1q tagged Ethernet traffic to multiple T-1
in a
Is this a feature that only works on the ES ports of that switch?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Chris Mason
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 12:01 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] QPPB
Did you look at Xangati, too, and if so, what did you think of it?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Wojciechowski
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:01 AM
To: Walter Keen; Mohammad Khalil;
So it sounds like if an end-customer wants an *untagged* port off of an SP
switch that there aren't any/many options to deliver double-tagged traffic
to that SP switch. Sounds like we can have double-tagged traffic between
the core and distribution, but when we bring it to the edge we need to
Thanks for explaining the semantical differences. What I'm looking to do is
the termination -- wouldn't the ME3400 do the trick?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: sth...@nethelp.no [mailto:sth...@nethelp.no]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 3:56 AM
To: frnk...@iname.com
Cc:
://tools.cisco.com/ITDIT/MIBS/MainServlet?ReleaseSel=0PlatformSel=0fsS
el=0IMAGE_NAME=c2600-is4-mz.123-26.binSUBMIT2=Submit
HTH
Ziv
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk -
iName.com
Sent: Friday, February 19
According to Cisco's MIB Locator, c2600-is4-mz.123-26.bin should have
CISCO-BGP4-MIB support, but when I try to walk that part of the tree
(1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.187) in v1 or v2c that fails. I'm using this router to do
IPv6 tunneling, and the only routes exchanged on this router are IPv6.
Anyone else
I agree, I have some good evidence. I'm not against upgrading if that will
resolve the issue.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Pavel Skovajsa [mailto:pavel.skova...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:43 AM
To: frnk...@iname.com
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re:
-Original Message-
From: Phil Mayers [mailto:p.may...@imperial.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:18 AM
To: frnk...@iname.com
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Unicast flooding?
While the event is occurring I have verified the ARP and CAM entry.
The
@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Unicast flooding?
Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
Have you looked at:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps708/products_tech_not
e09186a00807347ab.shtml#dfc
...specifically the 1st item Loss of Dynamic MAC Addresses with
Distributed
I have several uniquely numbered 802.1q tagged links coming into a Cisco
7609-S (12.2(33)SRB3) on a single physical port. I would like to use the
same group of subnets for each VLAN and I tried using loopbacks but it
doesn't work. Any ideas on what I'm doing wrong?
interface Loopback 2
ip dhcp
It's my understanding that BVIs on the 7600-platform only bridge non-IP
traffic, so that wouldn't work.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Querubin [mailto:t...@lava.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:30 PM
To: Frank Bulk - iName.com
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re
to achieve?
I think this should be done in a different way.
Also, what HW do you have?
Arie
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk -
iName.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 20:19
To: cisco-nsp
-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk -
iName.com
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 2:58 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Does the entire BGP routing table for IPv6 fit on a Cisco
2600 with 64 MB of DRAM?
Does the entire BGP
-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk -
iName.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 20:19
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Loopback/VLAN question
I have several uniquely numbered 802.1q tagged links coming into a Cisco
7609-S (12.2(33
Does the entire BGP routing table for IPv6 (almost 2500 entries) fit on a
Cisco 2600 with 64 MB of DRAM running 12.3(26)? I am planning to use this
box for an IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling appliance, but not sure if it can hold the
whole table.
Regards,
Frank
If you need to egress policing on those 24 ports, and those 24 ports don't
talk to each other, try ingress policing on the uplink by using the enhanced
port as the uplink..
Frank
From: Mohammad Khalil [mailto:eng_m...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 3:15 AM
To:
...@greenie.muc.de]
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 3:30 PM
To: Frank Bulk - iName.com
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Does the entire BGP routing table for IPv6 fit on a
Cisco 2600 with 64 MB of DRAM?
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 02:57:42PM -0600, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
Does the entire
I would have to disagree -- while there are some features shared by most
configurations, there's enough implementations using particular 'knobs' that
a less than complete feature set would leave the majority of network
engineers frustrated. For example, pick the less than complete
implementation
At least they aren't duplicate IPs and the routing table seems to be correct
give the situation.
There is a ppp ipcp unique username command that you can assign to the
Virtual Template, but a Cisco TAC person told me not to use that, as its use
is not as the description would seem. Apparently
An NPE400 should do fine if you're looking used or on a tight budget, but if
you're looking to buy for growth, just get a G2 and be done with it.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Antonio Querubin
In short, the best management VRF is a serial-based terminal server. =)
Frank
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Peter Rathlev
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 4:34 PM
To: cisco-nsp
Subject: Re: [c-nsp]
We deal with this issue on the BWA side of the house. We typically set up
the client radios to rate-limit broadcasts (yes, there's more to broadcast
than ARP, but ARP is most of it) to 7 pps and main radio to as low as 12
pps.
Frank
-Original Message-
From:
Our DSLAM vendor supports PPPoA to PPPoE encapsulation/conversion (I'm not
sure how), so that's our migration plan if we need to move to a new BRAS
that doesn't have OC-3 interfaces.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
I appreciate all the feedback I received. The product of that feedback is
this NAGIOS plugin:
http://exchange.nagios.org/directory/Plugins/Network-Protocols/*-Routing/BGP
%252D4/check_bgp_counters/details
Regards,
Frank
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
All of this is further confirmation that if its IP that you need to send
over multiple T1's, much better to get an ADC or like box that does Ethernet
over one or more raw T-1's. Abstracts the whole transport issue, and
gives Ethernet interfaces on both sides.
Frank
-Original Message-
: Balancing T1's with CEF
We are going to be deploying some more MLPPP ckts here in the next few
months and I am not familiar with ADCs. Are those carrier dependant? Does
this affect MPLS QoS?
Thanks,
-Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk - iName.com [mailto:frnk...@iname.com]
Sent
Ian:
Thanks for your input. I agree, snmptraps are the next obvious step. The
URL you provided was the one I refered to when looking through the results
of my walk through Cisco's BGP MIB. =)
Since my upstream monitors our edge routers, including BGP, the monitoring
is more to document that
Thanks. I had compiled RFC1213-MIB into my MIB browser, but not BGP4-MIB.
Once I did, it was all there
The stuff at NAGIOS exchange left me wanting, which is why I'm fleshing out
my own.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: nicot...@radiological.warningg.com
Have you tried the SNMP approach?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:16 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] hung vty on SXH3a?
Hi,
so far,
It's not cheap, but Xangati may be a good match.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Andy Dills
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 2:21 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Netflow analyzer
: Re: [c-nsp] Egress shaping/policing for bandwidth control on a
3750-ME
Try policing the port
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 9, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Brad Henshaw brad.hens...@qcn.com.au
wrote:
Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
I have two Cisco 3750-ME (Metro) where we are trying to apply
an 8 Mbps
I have two Cisco 3750-ME (Metro) where we are trying to apply an 8 Mbps
bandwidth limit to it.
We tried HQM shaping but got a lovely message that Hierarchical
service-policies are only supported on ES interfaces.
When we tried policing, we can't seem to apply the mls qos bridged command
to
The ability to provide a new/different IP every time has been oft-discussed
on ISC' dhcp-user listserv. IIRC, it contradicts the spec. You would have
customize the code to have that functionality, or, as someone said, play
with the leases file.
-Original Message-
From:
I've asked this before on cisco-bba: there doesn't appear to be an OID for
that.
I'm afraid you might need to screen-scrape.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mohammad Khalil
Sent: Wednesday, February
52 matches
Mail list logo
