On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Troy Lucero t...@osihardware.com wrote:
Anyone care to comment on trying to go from a 40gig port to a 10gig port
over 300 meters?
Yes its possible. No idea if Cisco offer it but certainly other vendors do.
Its not a IEEE 'standard' but it certainly exists,
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:02 PM, John Neiberger jneiber...@gmail.comwrote:
Would this even do what we want?
It won't do anything.
'hold-queue' is only for software based forwarding platforms.
it would help if you had a burst of packets back-to-back going for software
forwarding, but if you
On 16/02/2012, at 5:06 PM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2012-02-16 17:44 +1100), Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Just a question with the 4500-X. Why would the routing performance be
halved for v4 vs v6?
IPv4 Routing Performance: 245Mpps
IPv6 Routing Performance: 122Mpps
I'd like to
On 20/07/2011, at 12:24 PM, Rogelio wrote:
The free DHCP solution, ISC, seems to be having scaling issues (i.e.
handling only about 200 DHCPDISCOVER and 20 DHCPRENEW requests), and I
was wondering if anyone had any open source suggestions of solutions
that could scale much better?
On 08/07/2011, at 6:39 AM, krunal shah wrote:
Does anyone get any success to convert N5K to FI 6100?? As far as I know
both uses same chassis.
they are 'similar'. but they are not the 'same'.
you cannot convert one to the other.
cheers,
lincoln.
whether a device sends to the 'right' or 'wrong' N7K depends on which
physical link it chooses to use in a LAG bundle. as the neighboring
device has no idea its a point-to-multipoint bundle, its not really in a
position to choose the 'right' or 'wrong' link.
This makes complete sense.
On 23/04/2011, at 11:08 AM, Adrian Chung wrote:
The 6500s each have two ten gigE interfaces in a port-channel connected up
to vPCs on the 7K side. On top of this, each 6500 is forming an OSPF
adjacency with each 7K. The adjacencies form without a problem, and we're
not using peer-gateway.
On 29/03/2011, at 6:41 AM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
We are considering deploying a pair of Nexus 7010 switches using
fabricpath for L2 and HSRP for Layer 3.
If it really is only two boxes, FabricPath provides *no* benefits,
only more complexity
strongly disagree.
more than happy to
References: aanlktim_xe9tfrbrn7vsxxui8for_s1b-g64yjijo...@mail.gmail.com
2503de55ba5e394390f26298212b1381026e6b44f...@exvmbx017-1.exch017.msoutlookonline.net
4d87ac26.8090...@imperial.ac.uk
2503de55ba5e394390f26298212b1381026e6b450...@exvmbx017-1.exch017.msoutlookonline.net
On 21/03/2011, at 10:50 AM, Jeff Fitzwater wrote:
Since the NXOS only supports RIP V2 (from what I have read), is there any
undocumented support for RIP V1?
no. RIPv1 is long since dead, may it rest in peace.
maybe you can re-purpose a c2500 on the subnet to announce the RIPv1 default
On 20/03/2011, at 12:32 AM, Ziv Leyes wrote:
I would love to see a fully functional shell cli on network devices that
would allow us to gather information more effectively using
grep,awk,sed,etc...
speaking for NX-OS, you have all of awk/sed/grep/tr/wc/sort/uniq/diff already
available
hi Martin,
On 28/02/2011, at 10:16 AM, Martin Clifton wrote:
I have a concern about the table that is displayed when you enter the command
sh otv route. This table shows entries for site (ie local) and
overlay (ie other DC) mac addresses.The issue is with the Uptime
data. For the
On 17/02/2011, at 7:48 AM, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:
That helps a lot. Any idea what those counters actually count? We seem
to have a very high PARSE_INGRESS_DROP_CNT (around 1000pps) and
UIDB_TCAM_MISS_AGG_DROP (another 1000pps)?
I'm not an expert, but these two could be related:
On 27/01/2011, at 10:19 PM, Manu Chao wrote:
I need to upgrade (ISSU) multiples N7K Dual Supervisor running vPC domains
from NX-OS 4.2(6) to 5.1(1a).
ISSU from 4.2(6) to 5.1(1a) is non-disruptive. you should be able to upgrade
with no disruption to service.
having said that, always
On 28/01/2011, at 10:12 AM, Manu Chao wrote:
Because FPGA/EPLD upgrade operation is a disruptive operation, it is not
always possible to upgrade both software and firmware.
-- Do you think or may be do you know if it is an issue having an up-to-date
NX-OS 5.x with old EPLD release 4.x?
On 25/01/2011, at 11:57 PM, Matthew Melbourne wrote:
I managed to catch it, and for some strange reason iSCSI data-plane
traffic is hitting the control-place. When netstack is not running at
100%, I see the usual control plane traffic, e.g. HSRP, STP, ARP
(etc), but when it's at 100% I see
On 25/01/2011, at 12:23 AM, Matthew Melbourne wrote:
Thanks Lincoln.
I've manually added the CoPP entries for IS-IS/FabricPath to the
policy, but we are still seeing IS-IS adjacencies drop, so I'm not
convinced CoPP is the issue here.
you can ascertain if CoPP may be limiting you by
On 25/01/2011, at 9:44 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Jan 25, 2011, at 5:37 AM, Lincoln Dale wrote:
key is probably to find out what traffic is hitting it.
NetFlow may be useful to help determine this, as well.
sure - might be - but netflow won't - for example - show if 100K packets
show if 100K packets arrived in 1 second or 100 seconds.
Actually, it will - most any NetFlow collection/analysis system (open-source
or commercial) derives this information based upon the received flow
timestamps and the reported number of flows/NDE packet.
and if they constitute a
On 25/01/2011, at 12:53 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Jan 25, 2011, at 8:45 AM, Lincoln Dale wrote:
and if they constitute a single flow?
Each NDE record lists the number of packets in a given flow, so, yes,
absolutely. Operators make use of this NetFlow capability all the time.
sigh
On 25/01/2011, at 12:48 PM, Aaron Riemer wrote:
This is a really basic question and I should know the answer. I am just
pondering over loop guard and UDLD and take this for example:
note that at a fundamental level, mechanisms in Spanning Tree are always going
to be different to those that
On 25/01/2011, at 2:13 PM, Aaron Riemer wrote:
Hi Lincoln,
yes,
swltch 2 would consider the interface to be operationally down (loss of
light).
switch 1 is still receiving light.
If the interface is considered to be operationally down why does it still
transmit light out its TX
On 21/01/2011, at 5:07 AM, Jose Madrid wrote:
I have a 3560 and when do I show platform tcam utilization it says that I
have 1365 directly connected routes. This is definitely not the case and
when I do a show ip route connected there are various IP blocks shown, but
none longer than a /26
On 14/01/2011, at 5:22 AM, s...@lists.esoteric.ca wrote:
Wondering if someone from Cisco can chime in on this one, since I can't
find any roadmap information on the Cisco site.
yep. generally speaking, cisco doesn't publish roadmap information on cisco.com
:)
Will the Nexus 7000 NX-OS
On 17/01/2011, at 7:02 AM, Matthew Melbourne wrote:
We are currently seeing IS-IS adjacencies flap on one of our pair of
N7k boxes (eachN7k is dual-attached to two upstream edge routers):
[..]
I am wondering whether the default CoPP policy is classifying IS-IS
CLNS traffic its class-default
On 16/01/2011, at 3:12 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
Are there any cheap/old switches out there that you can install the same
version of the OS that the Nexus 7000 runs? The main benefit of this would be
learning the new commands, etc but not having to buy a Nexus 7000.
no. you could purchase a
On 20/10/2010, at 4:42 PM, Shanawaz wrote:
1. I assume this is happening because all traffic is matching the deny
statement in the ACL copp-system-acl-telnet. What does the deny in an CoPP
ACL do?
in the context of a CoPP policy: nothing. its not valid to have a 'deny' IP
ACL matching a
On 21/10/2010, at 2:49 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
It's my understanding that more IOS-like VTY ACLs are coming NX-OS 5.1,
indeed, NX-OS 5.1 does have VTY ACLs:
ltd-n7010-1# conf t
Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.
ltd-n7010-1(config)#
On 21/10/2010, at 12:05 PM, Shanawaz wrote:
If my testing doesnot make sense, I can try explaining again.
your tests make perfect sense and just reiterate what i said up front. a
'deny' won't do what you think it does.
net-net:
1. use a 'permit' ACL to match the traffic you want, set a
as well as the books, if you have access to Cisco Networkers/Live material then
the NX-OS Software Architecture and Nexus Hardware Architecture session(s) but
together by your friendly clueful Cisco folks are likely useful too.
there are a few of us who are on this list who have spent countless
On 28/09/2010, at 9:44 AM, William Cooper wrote:
I'm still a bit confused... I've a pretty significant investment in
the 65/7600's; am I vested
in having a 3 tier architecture for the foreseeable future?
the historical reasons as to why a certain number of tiers were chosen was
mostly around
On 27/09/2010, at 1:44 AM, scott owens wrote:
The reasoning to want to run parallel paths is that with a cable/gbic
failure the traffic will not flow in the VDC/VPC/multichannel etherchannel
fashion but rather will end up traversing links between the 7Ks and 5Ks in
an odd fashion.
you can
On 23/09/2010, at 7:43 AM, Good One wrote:
I have a 10G circuit over DWDM which is flapping very frequently
occasionally. DOWN to UP state takes 5 second most of the time, just
wondering what could be causing this.
Sep 22 21:47:46 T12 mib2d[2061]: SNMP_TRAP_LINK_DOWN: ifIndex 117,
On 21/09/2010, at 7:49 AM, Robert Larsen wrote:
Does anyone know how this is handled? Is all broadcast traffic sent
out of one physical interface, and is this hard-configured or
automatically chosen?
This is on the ASR9k with the 8-port 10GigE card. Not sure about the
version of IOS, but
On 19/09/2010, at 10:12 PM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
I noticed that when a remote user logs into a n5k and then logs out, the
show user-account command still displays the user credentials.
Waiting for some time or clearing manually the user from config mode (?),
fixes the above.
Is
On 24/08/2010, at 8:59 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
First CSCO box to support policing unknown unicast is EARL7.5 but it is
per chassis instead of per port. I'm not sure if any Cisco can support
per port unknown unicast policing, but if Nexus7k/EARL8 doesn't do it,
I'm betting there isn't any box
On 18/08/2010, at 1:24 AM, Jmail Clist wrote:
Troubleshooting black hole issues again with the Nexus 7k. My question is..
is there a way to track when the peer bit is set/flagged so I can find when
my packets are going nowhere?
no idea what you mean by peer bit.
contact me off list with some
On 16/08/2010, at 7:22 PM, Sai wrote:
How can I clean/remove/edit known_hosts file on Nexus?
clear ssh hosts
cheers,
lincoln.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
On 11/08/2010, at 3:54 PM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
Just another quick question : can ethanalyser capture traffic *before *being
dropped by an acl?
N7K: yes.
and in fact, because the way we actually do it is implement the data plane
forwarding in the h/w (ASIC) path with a 'rate limited
g'day,
On 12/08/2010, at 8:26 AM, christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com wrote:
I'm trying to implement PBR-filtering of MSDP messages from a Nexus 7000
running 5.0(2a), and I'm starting to think that the route-map is being
interpreted wrong.
The relevant parts of the configuration are:
feature
On 10/08/2010, at 5:43 PM, David Freedman wrote:
Can't seem to find anything suggesting a feature which could quite easily be
a superb alternative to bridging is even remotely vrf aware.
Any advice/pointers appreciated.
1. OTV
[i had replied to David off list but it seems his reply to me was bcc'd here.
so to keep things relevant i'm posting the reply here too]
On 10/08/2010, at 6:53 PM, David Freedman wrote:
I should have mentioned that my target trains are 12.2SX and 12.2SR :)
6500/7600 are capable of
On 10/08/2010, at 6:35 PM, Alexander Clouter wrote:
I was toying with the idea internally of putting a tiny OSPF router into
our VM cluster to drag IP's from one side of our organisation to the
other.
reality is that many hosts and applications require and expect layer 2
connectivity for
g'day,
The only remaining question is why for it's money have VMWare not done
the trivial task of making OSPF part of their VMotion malarkey...*sigh*
because its not /quite/ as simple as you suggest.
The awkward part I see is host based (not service) L3 connectivity. The
operating
N7K supports ACL logging, ACL time ranges, MAC packet-classify functionality
etc., N5K does not currently support them.
the mistake is that documentation was carried over to N5K from N7K without
being changed.
cheers,
lincoln.
On 11/08/2010, at 5:58 AM, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:
Yes,
' then the blocked link would be on the
access layer since the STP root would be in the Agg layer?
not sure what benefit you'll get from a square in a vPC world
cheers,
lincoln.
On 22 July 2010 13:13, Lincoln Dale l...@cisco.com wrote:
On 22/07/2010, at 8:16 PM, Matthew Melbourne wrote
...@mail.utexas.edu]
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 6:57 PM
To: Church, Charles
Cc: Manu Chao; Peter Rathlev; Lincoln Dale; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] NX-OS - Fabric Path
Thanks for posting this. I am seeing the same thing and since I know
that I am the only person with access
On 22/07/2010, at 8:16 PM, Matthew Melbourne wrote:
Is it possible to extend two vDCs between Data Centres using OTV (pair
of N7k on each site) - it's not clear how OTV uses vDCs to extend the
L2 domain.
yes, its possible. there are 3 methods:
1. OTV runs inside a Virtual Device Context.
On 21/07/2010, at 9:13 PM, j.vaningensche...@utwente.nl
j.vaningensche...@utwente.nl wrote:
Is it just me or did others also receive a duplicate of the message
below? Not only this one, but also others that had mr LTD as recipient
and the list in CC...
The duplicate comes later and has
On 19/07/2010, at 11:08 PM, Manu Chao wrote:
DRILL...
*Will Fabric Path* be based on OTV?
no.
OTV is a technology that allows us to extend L2 across any L3 (IP)
infrastructure. Cisco Fabric Path is in essence the ability to run L2 networks
without spanning tree and all links active.
To: Peter Rathlev
Cc: Lincoln Dale; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] NX-OS - Fabric Path
Yes, but Nexus hardware is the right platform if you don't want to loose any
packet in your DC ;)
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Peter Rathlev pe...@rathlev.dk wrote:
On Tue
On 17/07/2010, at 9:58 AM, Aaron Riemer wrote:
Enabled SNMP traps and MAC-notifications and this brought another issue to
my attention. There is a huge amount of mac-flapping going on (not for this
host) but our ESX hosts that have vmnics trunking to both our cores.
The VM guys are sending
On 17/07/2010, at 4:55 PM, Aaron Riemer wrote:
Thanks Lincoln.
The server team must be using the Route based on IP hash method then.
All adapters in the NIC team must be attached to the same physical switch
or an appropriate set of stacked physical switches.
also ensure you pay
Tom,
iSCSI runs atop of TCP. generally speaking, the TCP state machine uses packet
drop (lost segments) to tune its transmit rate to the capabilities of the
network end-to-end.
PFC will essentially provide a no-drop environment which while in face value
may seem to be beneficial in reality
anywhere.
GG
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Lincoln Dale l...@cisco.com wrote:
On 29/06/2010, at 12:26 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
Any idea on when that might be? I can't even view the bug report.
the next NX-OS 4.2 maintenance release for the N5K is due to be posted on
cisco.com in Q4
Gary,
On 28/06/2010, at 1:04 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
NX-OS definitely prevents you from mapping them to *any* instance.
I'll open a TAC case with Cisco tomorrow and see if I get anywhere.
CSCtc54335 covers this.
its due to be sync'd to the next 4.2(x) maintenance release on N5K.
cheers,
automatically alerted to the problem.
indeed, the person that filed the bug marked it as internal only.
i'll ask them to fix that. clearly it should be visible.
cheers,
lincoln.
GG
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Lincoln Dale l...@cisco.com wrote:
Gary,
On 28/06/2010, at 1:04 AM, Gary T
On 18/06/2010, at 4:24 AM, Chris Boyd wrote:
Having a discussion with a colleague about forwarding on HSRP. I seem to
remember seeing datagrams that were addressed to the virtual IP address, but
were delivered to the standby router getting forwarded from the standby to
the active for
they seem to work but trust me when i state (with a Cisco hat on) that
there are good reasons we don't list the 1m/3m/5m passive CX1 as officially
supported on N7K-M132XP-12 module.
if you are going to use them - either cisco branded or 3rd party ones -
strongly suggest you actually 'test' them
On 09/06/2010, at 7:47 AM, Livio Zanol Puppim wrote:
Does anybody knows if it's possible to monitor rate-limit utilization using
SNMP in any equipements of the nexus family? I haven't found any MIB with
this information
On 30/05/2010, at 6:59 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
Having just recently muscled a Nexus 7k into a rack (not fun, btw) I've been
noticing an increasing trend of manufacturers not taking typical rack
dimensions (particularly depth) into account when designing new products. The
7k is about
On 28/05/2010, at 12:01 AM, Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:45 +0530, jaikar gupta wrote:
Thanks peter but i want to Know MAC-addresses.
Then you use BRIDGE-MIB for switches, and RFC1213-MIB for routers. :-)
Disregarding certain special cases a router will only know MAC
On 26/05/2010, at 10:30 PM, jaikar gupta wrote:
But when we introduce the Cisco Routers (2509 series) in the network and run
the discovery it doesnt show the links between the Router-Switch as well as
Router-Router,
The problem with the Link discover is that their is no value in the
27, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Lincoln Dale l...@cisco.com wrote:
On 26/05/2010, at 10:30 PM, jaikar gupta wrote:
But when we introduce the Cisco Routers (2509 series) in the network and run
the discovery it doesnt show the links between the Router-Switch as well as
Router-Router,
The problem
On 24/05/2010, at 12:02 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Cisco said they are
working on getting the old features added back in as a
feature enhancement later on.
Eeek - CoPP is a good workaround but seems like too much
muscle for a simple task like this.
Well, at least the IOS-way will make it
On 24/05/2010, at 11:18 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On May 24, 2010, at 4:51 AM, Lincoln Dale wrote:
the irony is that CoPP is actually a superior solution to the problem, as
CoPP is enforced in the h/w forwarding path - whereas a vty access-class is
applied in software once the packets
On 21/05/2010, at 12:53 PM, Jason Leblanc wrote:
We are deploying a ton of Nexus 7ks right now. Our traditional standard had
a named ACL for SNMP, we also use transport input ssh and have an ACL
allowing access for that, Our tools are only allowed from certain segments
etc... On the 7k's
On 11/05/2010, at 2:12 PM, Manu Chao wrote:
I need to encrypt L2 trafic over a MAN between 2 Nexus 7K. The feature CTS
seems to be the right feature to use with 802.1x. Correct?
Question is could we have a local authentication/authorization instead
classical Radius/ACS query/reply since it
On 11/05/2010, at 5:31 PM, Erik Witkop wrote:
But all the tags and policies come from the ACS. I could be wrong, but I
don't think it can currently be done locally. Unless something has changed in
the last 2 years or so.
we've always had the ability to do CTS crypto or CTS SGT/SGACL manually
On 07/05/2010, at 9:43 PM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
Has anyone successfully run Nexus 5000s and Nexus 2000s with 3rd party
10Gbase-LRM SFP+?
(LRM SFP+ is not supported from Cisco (yet?)).
i doubt anyone has successfully deployed it as LRM is not supported on N5K or
N2K.
there are
On 04/05/2010, at 6:01 AM, Charles Spurgeon wrote:
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 10:19:53AM +1000, Lincoln Dale wrote:
the keepalive link is not mandatory - but certainly best practice would be
for it to be operational as much as possible rather than having it on a
network that didn't have
On 01/05/2010, at 10:09 PM, christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com
christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com wrote:
It hasn't given me any surprises. TAC reviewed it, told me I should be fine,
didn't seem to share my (or the OP's) concern about making the keepalive
robust.
the L3 (IP) based vPC keepalive is
the L3 (IP) based vPC keepalive is purely intended to assist in dealing with
split-brain if the vPC peer-link is non-functional.
having simultaneous failure of both would be an unusual circumstance,
particularly if you follow best-practice on the vPC peer-link itself..
This is what I had
On 03/05/2010, at 12:35 PM, chris stand wrote:
How about power outage in the data center
what about it?
not sure i get the context of your question or whether its actually a question.
cheers,
lincoln.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
On 29/04/2010, at 8:15 AM, james edwards wrote:
The access-lists seem to not work when configed out but works fine
configured in
ACLs don't match locally-originated traffic from the router.
cheers,
lincoln.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
On 15/04/2010, at 7:26 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Seems a bunch of Cisco kit... 887M, ASA5510 and others all have June or July
on their delivery expectations
I've heard there are some problems, but only vague rumours... nothing
concentre..
if you want a concrete answer, talk to your
On 25/03/2010, at 7:40 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:01:01PM +0100, Per Carlson wrote:
Is there an SNMP OID that reports total traffic that passes through a
router?
From RFC1213-MIB:
ipForwDatagrams OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Counter
Is that implemented in
On 18/03/2010, at 7:10 PM, Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
In addition, by buying kit which takes X2 modules, you're committing a
huge amount of transceiver capex on a particular vendor (i.e. Cisco or
HP) which cannot then be moved to another vendor, because no-one else in
the industry uses them. This
On 17/03/2010, at 7:05 PM, Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 09:54:13AM +1100, Lincoln Dale wrote:
from a switch design standpoint if you are designing a switch that could
be used in many places in the network then reality is one probably needs
to support multiple transceiver
On 17/03/2010, at 9:16 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
certainly if you are most focussed on long-distance optics or DWDM
then indeed SFP+ is probably not for you.
True, but...
Hearing statements which add up to this whole transceiver platform depends
on the transceiver, linecard hardware and
On 18/03/2010, at 9:10 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 17/03/2010 21:28, Lincoln Dale wrote:
this assertion is also false. i can categorically state that there
has not been, there have been any number of quirks with standards
compliant MSA transceivers.
To be fair, Lincoln, Marian is talking
On 17/03/2010, at 12:54 AM, Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
[..] Thus, the massive rush towards SFP+ might at the end of the day turn out
to be a serious flaw, [..]
you list downsides without giving fair balance to the upsides.
like many things engineering, its often not a case of something being
On 15/03/2010, at 7:37 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
The real mess here is the non-deterministic nature of what you're doing.
Someone flaps that /16 and now you've added 1000 new more specifics,
which might push you over the edge in FIB usage, with no way to predict
when or where it will
On 15/03/2010, at 5:54 AM, christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com
christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com wrote:
These days you can get cheap twinax 10G cables with SFP+ at the ends
to
connect two Cisco switches or two Procurves. Short distance only of
course, but very cheap.
They're also useful for
On 15/03/2010, at 7:57 AM, christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com
christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com wrote:
twinax support claims I've seen to date. I'm hopeful that vendors will
come to their senses on pluggables, at least for twinax cabling.
HP are currently locking in to HP transceivers. email
On 12/03/2010, at 6:23 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
Can you elaborate (or point me to docs) on how this dynamic allocation works?
Is the TCAM populated on demand based on traffic? I imagine the old horror of
the Sup1A's flow-based forwarding every time I hear this...
no very very different.
On 09/03/2010, at 5:36 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Some of us have tried (hard) to get Cisco and Juniper to come forward
with an official statement about whether /31 is supported or not on
Ethernet links. We have been entirely unsuccessful - the answer we
receive is always of the type try
On 05/12/2009, at 7:18 AM, Geert Nijs wrote:
Lincoln,
Just to be clear:
all 'edge' ports should be running with BPDU guard enabled. 'edge ports'
(those facing hosts) should NEVER send BPDUs out. BPDU guard is there to
detect if they do - and if they do, its a sign that they have
On 04/12/2009, at 1:29 AM, Howard Jones wrote:
I've just run into an odd problem, and was wondering if anyone else
could clarify this for me.
[c1]---[Sw1]--[Sw2]---[c2]
c1 and c2 are client devices. Sw1 and Sw2 are 3750Gs with a trunk
between them. c1 has a trunk to Sw1. One of
On 27/11/2009, at 6:41 PM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:33:37 +1100, you wrote:
Except, of cause, the N7K doesn't currently do MPLS and won't for
another year, and when it does it will, as always, be released in
fases.
fast forward to now from Nexus first release
On 28/11/2009, at 2:33 AM, Justin Shore wrote:
Exactly. These days MPLS/VPNs is as much a DC feature as basic switching.
Our DC couldn't operate with MPLS/VPNs.
so some extent it depends on exactly how far 'down' into your DC you extend
MPLS VPNs.
for example, do you extend it down to the
On 27/11/2009, at 8:14 AM, samuel vuillaume wrote:
Can someone see a benefit of bridge assurance instead of using loop guard? I
understand what BA does, but i can't see any benefits over loop guard.
there are a few scenarios where LoopGuard would not be effective at detecting
loops and/or
On 27/11/2009, at 12:14 AM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
If there's a 4 slot chassis in the 2nd generation then I could see
N7K and N5K / N4K as a possible end-to-end platform for L3/MPLS core,
L2/L3 aggregation, and L2 access. And it would all run the same
software !!!
Except, of
On 16/11/2009, at 12:58 AM, luismi wrote:
IS there anyone in this mailing list involved with the IRIS project?
i can put you in contact with the relevant folks if you want.
there are links to folks at
http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/government/space-routing.html
its been a big week for
On 03/11/2009, at 5:25 PM, Stanly Johns wrote:
Is it possible for a BPDU guard enabled switch port to get disabled
without
connecting any other device than the IP Phone and a PC ? I had to do
a shut
and no shut to bring it up !
The logs are as follows. your inputs are highly appreciated.
On 29/10/2009, at 9:58 AM, David Hughes wrote:
On 28/10/2009, at 11:18 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
The smartest/sanest thing to do, IMHO, would be to work at
migrating to NX-OS, feature-set by feature-set. It's by far the
cleanest and best-designed OS platform Cisco have come out with to
On 11/09/2009, at 5:19 AM, Lee Calcote wrote:
Does anyone know what user account privilege level is needed to run
netconf
commands on the Nexus 7000?
short answer:
it doesn't matter what priv you have. that won't dictate whether you
can use NetConf.
longer answer:
whether you're doing
hi Todd,
a few of the cisco folks that are subscribed to cisco-nsp focus on the
Nexus range we're a pretty friendly bunch.
there's a few things below that aren't quite correct. see inline
below...
On 09/09/2009, at 8:43 PM, Todd, Douglas M. wrote:
A few other thoughts on the Nexus
On 28/08/2009, at 9:18 AM, Andy Saykao wrote:
I have noticed that with MST and rapid failover that those ports which
are not boundary ports or do not have portfast enabled go through the
blocking, listening and learning states again before forwarding.
whether its PVRST+ or MST used, you
On 18/08/2009, at 11:48 PM, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
Those namespaces are specified as versions of the netconf namespace,
not as Cisco-specific namespaces. Those will change only for
subsequent versions of the top-most, Netconf-defined tags.
Unfortunately, JUNOS does encode generating versions
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
