on these providers, so I'll have to deal with ipsec/gre overhead.
I don't do anything crazy blocking with ICMP, but I'm still hesitant to move
forward with such a design.
-JP Senior
The contents of this message may contain confidential and/or privileged
subject matter. If this message has been
type inspect OUTSIDE-SELF
Thanks for your time, everyone!
-JP Senior
CCIE #24838 (RS)
The contents of this message may contain confidential and/or privileged
subject matter. If this message has been received in error, please contact
the sender and delete all copies. Like other forms
I use riverbed steelhead appliances on a few links ranging from 40ms to 240ms.
I tend to get about 85% savings on actual traffic that goes through. I think
what is very important to know is the type of traffic you expect to optimize.
Riverbed is -very- good at MAPI and CIFS traffic, which is
a router(or
two, using FHRP).
As far as shared 'router' vlans or subnets, this is completely normal and
common for distribution/core networks.
-JP Senior
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Erik Nelson
Sent: 01
It sounds like you should be focusing more on a layer 3 solution than a layer 2
solution - run an IGP between your 3560s or 3750s. Even if you did have proper
fiber connectivity between locations, you should be isolating VTP (if
_absolutely_ required) to single sites. You should also
I've interpreted the warning as Cisco removing their support and liability
requirements for the optics themselves, My SFP doesn't work, help. I
wouldn't expect any data issues whatsoever. They'll continue to support the
switch as normal for non-gbic issues. I've been running service
If you are purely Ethernet then the cheapest Cisco solution would be an
ASA5505
Be aware that it's basically useless for more than a handful unique IP
addresses (20 or so) without a Security plus license upgrade for the 5505.
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
