Re: [c-nsp] ospf auto-cost reference-bandwidth on modern gigabit networks

On 4/30/20 12:30 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: On 29/Apr/20 17:04, Mike wrote: Hello, Is there a recommended 'modern default' for ip ospf auto-cost reference-bandwidth, to account for the fact that modern networks have 1g and faster interfaces?     My core equipment all has 10G and 1G

[c-nsp] Consult to the consultant: educate me on VPLS

Howdy cisco-nspers, As a side hustle, I consult for a NSP in Texas who's done a bang-up job keeping their network alive on old gear: 6504E/Sup720-3BXL, 6408/6516/6704 cards, and 7206VXRs. They're doing great stuff with MPLS TE, a little bit of MPLS L3, and some L2 transport. Nonetheless,

Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 7k Upgrade Path

I would even go so far as to: load system/kickstart files isolate the box (shutdown all ports) power-cycle the box, let it boot into the new code perform EPLD updates on all cards run the ISSU command to ensure all of the little microcode thingies (PSUs, fans, etc.) are covered unisolate the

Re: [c-nsp] Migrating multi 1Gb port-chan member ints to 10G .....possible withot having to create a new portchan?

Copy the config off-box, trim it down to just the subinterfaces, copy that resulting file to bootflash. Delete the members, add the new members, and if you have to restore the subinterfaces, copy bootflash:subints-config-bits running-config It's not hard, you can have your ducks all ready to

Re: [c-nsp] NCS4200 - re-badged ASR920 / ASR900 ?

Or the Nexus 5010 vs. UCS Fabric Interconnect debacle? I think there's one extra CPU/ASIC on the board of the FIs, and the paint color is different, but the code is different. On 4/25/17 4:24 AM, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:06:33AM +, CiscoNSP List wrote: If

[c-nsp] OT: anyone with Brocade MLX experience that includes confederations?

Somewhat off-topic, but at least the device in question speaks to a pair of Cisco ASRs: anyone have experience with Brocade MLX routers that happens to include BGP confederations? At $dayjob, I'm getting ready to unravel a confederation and go with good old-fashioned full-mesh IBGP (because

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 6509 / WS-CAC-6000W OUTPUT FAIL

Late to the thread, but some of the chassis models (non-E, perhaps) have a backplane power limitation from the B supply IIRC, and it was somewhere in the 4kw range. On 3/14/17 2:42 AM, James Bensley wrote: On 13 March 2017 at 15:02, "Rolf Hanßen" wrote:

Re: [c-nsp] Cat 6500: WS-X6748-SFP and VSS?

Yes, the C variant of the PFC is necessary to have the VSS "bit" in the TCAM. Whether you need C or CXL is up to the rest of the stuff in your unit: if any XL, all must be XL. On 1/16/17 7:03 AM, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: Hi all, Am 16.01.2017 um 15:36 schrieb Patrick M. Hausen

Re: [c-nsp] stange vlan 1 output

DTP faulted on the port in question, causing it to not trunk even though the mode is trunk. Any chance the adjacent device is a 4948? I've seen that platform do this a lot where the 4948 participates in DTP enough for the other side to drop to access but the 4948 forgets to match it. On

Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 5448 IOS from 5.0.3 to 7.0.1 upgrade

didn't find that in Cisco doc. On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Pete Templin <peteli...@templin.org> wrote: The documents aren't hard to understand. I found the release notes for NXOS 7.0.1 within the Nexus 5000 family and see no mention of a 5448 under the list of supported hardware, so it

Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 5448 IOS from 5.0.3 to 7.0.1 upgrade

The documents aren't hard to understand. I found the release notes for NXOS 7.0.1 within the Nexus 5000 family and see no mention of a 5448 under the list of supported hardware, so it would appear that it's not supported. On 8/3/2016 8:53 AM, Satish Patel wrote: Problem is we don't have

Re: [c-nsp] 6500/7600 TCAM Usage

+1 on what Gert said. You'll get log entries at the 90% threshold within a region, but the badness only happens when you tickle the 100% threshold. On 5/31/2016 11:45 AM, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:19:22PM +0100, James Bensley wrote: I have asked TAC and they said

Re: [c-nsp] LAN + Security solution hint

Years ago, my uncle was sailing to the Bahamas, and was navigating using "dead reckoning" (triangulation using reference points on land, etc.). He radioed a cargo ship to request his position. They politely declined, for liability reasons, but offered to confirm or deny his guess. Let's play

Re: [c-nsp] SUP-2T and Cisco 6513

Almost. 6724s (SFP or GE) will work in slots 1-8; they only use one fabric connection. On 1/14/2016 5:18 PM, Paul wrote: You are correct with the sup720, the 67xx line cards are only supported in slots 9-13. On 1/13/2016 6:58 AM, Alireza Soltanian wrote: Hi everybody We are planning for

Re: [c-nsp] How many maximum routes does Cisco 2900 router support?

The 2900 series is a generic CPU-based platform, which means it's not TCAM-based and therefore has no distinct route count limit. IOS software, features and their associated data structures, as well as routes all compete for the RAM available. The choice of routing protocol (and associated

Re: [c-nsp] 6VPE on 7600 RSP720 3CXL

Just a tiny tidbit related to TCAM reallocation, make sure the SP bootvar's config register matches the RP bootvar's config register. In tech-speak, 'sh bootv | i eg' should match 'rem com sw sh bootv | i eg'. If it doesn't, "conf t; config-register 0x2142; end; conf t; config-register 0x2102;

Re: [c-nsp] Load balancing

Hey M K, Which CCIE exam is this question from? Please stop asking us to do your homework, or to do your cheating. On 5/11/2015 1:45 AM, M K wrote: Hi allI have the below setup SW6 / \SW4 SW5 | | R1 R2 \ /

Re: [c-nsp] EEM Execution Time

There's a difference between an overall temper and a simple pointer that someone's just not at the right level. This particular individual brings a lot of completely unresearched questions to the list...things where they'd be better served by hiring a consultant, or in some cases where they'd

Re: [c-nsp] BGP Outbound Traffic

Yes. Read up on policy-based routing. That's the method to route based on anything more than just destination address. On 3/22/2015 3:55 AM, M K wrote: Can i Control the outgoing traffic for a specific prefix to use a specific neighbor and the incoming traffic for the same prefix to use also

Re: [c-nsp] slow convergence on edge BGP routers

Shift the traffic before you drop the connection: Advertise your routes with the right mix of communities to get ISP 1 to prefer ISP2 instead of your direct link. That'll cause their propagation of your announcement to withdraw in a more graceful manner. Likewise, depreference the routes

Re: [c-nsp] Community tagged route, redistributed to RR, but OSPF learnt route takes precedence(So RIB failure)

To the best of my knowledge, there's a completely independent BGP RIB, where all BGP routes go to live/die. Therefore, RIB failure doesn't prevent propagation. Does the RR consider this path its best path for this route? If not, it won't reflect it. Otherwise, I'd verify that you have

Re: [c-nsp] TCN's - Causing brief outages on ASR1K

You can run RSTP or MST all day long on a switch to get rapid STP convergence, but you'll only gain the rapidness of RSTP/MST on ports where they neighbor is actually participating in the correct STP variant. Routers don't participate in STP, so the 4948 has to treat those ports as legacy STP.

Re: [c-nsp] Cursed IP address

On 11/30/2014 12:22 AM, Victor Sudakov wrote: Daniel Roesen wrote: Check for enabled IGMP snooping on this switch. Try disabling snooping. We have already tried that, with no effect. Besides, IGMP snooping should not affect packets with only one unicast source address on only one switch.

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco recommendation for distribution layer campus network

On 9/28/14 11:53 AM, Randy Manning wrote: Chassis vs 1u layer 3 switches for distribution layer on campus network This is my first post. I have used stack switches for access layer and nexus vpc in data center. Why is cisco proposing nexus for distribution layer? To eliminate spanning tree

Re: [c-nsp] Full Routes / iBGP Issue Question

On 9/25/14 6:40 AM, David Deutsch wrote: Hello all, Please excuse my disorganized posting/question, as this is my first posting to the mailing list. Currently I am attempting to implement two ASR1002-X routers on my network edge, each with diverse eBGP provider connections receiving full

Re: [c-nsp] Adjusting TCAM allocation weird behavior on 7600

On 8/7/14 6:04 PM, Rod James Bio wrote: One question, if I had a confreg 0x0 on my standby-sup shouldn't it stopped booting when I did a reload command, as I mentioned earlier? Maybe 0x0 isn't the value I'm thinking of, but I've personally experienced a situation where a config-register

Re: [c-nsp] Adjusting TCAM allocation weird behavior on 7600

On 8/6/2014 7:18 PM, Rod James Bio wrote: BUT remote command switch show mls cef max, I see: FIB TCAM maximum routes : === Current :- --- IPv4 + MPLS - 512k (default) IPv6 + IP Multicast - 256k (default) Could this mean that the two sups are not sync? Here is

Re: [c-nsp] Adjusting TCAM allocation weird behavior on 7600

On 8/5/2014 4:03 AM, Rod James Bio wrote: Hi, I'd like to ask anyone in the group who owns cisco 7600 if they had experience when they adjusted the allocation to increase the maximum routes for ipv4 etc. We are near the 512K ipv4 limit (~509K) for the 7600 (default size) and I tried adjusting

Re: [c-nsp] DFC3C-XL refuses to operate in XL mode

Insufficient RAM or bad RAM on the DFC, such that although the inventory PROM reports that it's a XL, the RAM count is low enough that it boots as non-XL? On 7/30/2014 6:56 AM, Jiri Prochazka wrote: Lukas, the other cards do not have any negative impact on the PFC mode of the whole

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 (6k/7600) FIB_EXCEPTION_THRESHOLD warnings

On 6/9/2014 11:37 AM, Pete Lumbis wrote: If you have a Sup720 pulling a full BGP feed you've probably seen error messages like this: *%MLSCEF-SP-4-FIB_EXCEPTION_THRESHOLD: Hardware CEF entry usage is at 95% capacity for IPv4 unicast protocol* A document was just published on Cisco.com

Re: [c-nsp] X6708-10G-3C compatible with 7604 chassis?

On 3/20/2014 1:23 PM, Lobo wrote: xxx#sh module Mod Sub-Module Model Serial Hw Status --- -- --- --- --- 1 Policy Feature Card 3 7600-PFC3CXL-10GE JAE14360195 1.2Ok 2 Distributed

Re: [c-nsp] X6708-10G-3C compatible with 7604 chassis?

On 3/20/2014 4:21 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: one could swap the DFC with a CFC depending on your needs as well. - jared I can't speak definitively, but I don't think that's possible on a X6708. They certainly aren't sold directly with a CFC. pt ___

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 - FIB full, software switching

On 2/3/14 7:03 AM, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: Is there a way to avoid those issues by let it just ignoring routes not matching into the FIB? Hi Rolf, Unfortunately the only option is to reset the bgp neighbor after the number of received routes crosses a certain threshold. neighbor x.x.x.x

Re: [c-nsp] ISP / MPLS POP design

On 11/6/13 4:52 PM, CiscoNSP List wrote: Don't forget to use per PE/VRF RDs. re per PE RD's - So you are suggesting for each PE, I use unique RD's for a given VRF? I could see this would assist with troubleshooting(Being able to see which PE a route originated from), are there any other

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco Switch Portfolio Miss

On 9/12/13 11:30 AM, Gert Doering wrote: To be fair, one would need to compare software features - so what does the N3K do? L2 only? L3, with how many routes? IPv6, MPLS? Gert, you don't want to explore the N3K, you'll have 6500 heartburn all over again. URPF halves the route table size,

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco LFA FRR

On 8/6/13 2:54 AM, M K wrote: Is it bad these days if someone wants to learn ? stop investigating and acting as detectives , if you wanna help your welcome ! Perhaps the question was posed so you could narrow down what you felt was unclear about the documentation. pt

Re: [c-nsp] BGP re-announcement question

On 7/29/13 4:06 PM, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote: The best route is through your upstream (I guess), so you are not advertising it back... You could increase the local-pref for routes you receive from your customers as compared to routes you receive from your upstreams. In this way you would

Re: [c-nsp] BGP re-announcement question

On 8/1/13 12:08 PM, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote: I wrote that I am not sure your customer would always want you to send traffic down their link because there are scenarios where customers would buy backup links which they expect not to get traffic on unless some other primary link goes down...

Re: [c-nsp] ipv6

On 6/21/13 4:06 PM, Lobo wrote: Here is what we sort of followed: * Get your IPv6 block from your RIR; typically a /32 but we were able to negotiate a /28 * Come up with a good IPv6 address plan; spend some good time on this * Enable IPv6 connectivity to your upstream and public

Re: [c-nsp] Possible spanning tree issue

On 6/4/13 3:56 PM, Michael Sprouffske wrote: I attached a new switch to the network and it took down our contact center that doesn't touch this switch nor does the phone system. Is this spanning tree doing this? I don't see anything in the logs that show a change in spanning tree. I also had

Re: [c-nsp] Catalyst 6506 continually rebooting after mls cef maximum-routes ip change

On 5/30/13 8:27 AM, vinny_abe...@dell.com wrote: Any hints as what to look for on this switch to determine why increasing the maximum IPv4 routes won't stick and causes it to reboot every 5 minutes? I suspected maybe it's short on some resources like RAM or something, but it seems to be

Re: [c-nsp] VSS to vPC - vPC to Etherchannel

On 3/16/13 5:34 PM, Andrew Miehs wrote: The cisco documentation recommends static as the recovery times are supposedly faster due to no negotiation. Not really sure if the downsides make up for that though. Who really cares if the recovery times are faster? If you are recovering, your link

Re: [c-nsp] STP active/listed on wrong port

On 3/13/13 2:13 AM, Rolf Hanßen wrote: Hello, maybe just a bug I found, shutting down the port and re-enabling it solves it: I was afraid you'd shut/no-shut the port and erase the troubleshooting data. I've seen this on links between N7K and Cat4948-10GE where the C49 somehow flunked DTP

Re: [c-nsp] BGP route won't advertise

On 2/28/13 10:35 AM, Jerry Bacon wrote: It's complicated. I am doing transit for this customer, be we have common upstream peers, and I need to disallow his other advertisements. I'm sure there are better ways to do this, but my real problem is that I can't get one of my routers to advertise

[c-nsp] 6500/Sup720-3BXL FIB TCAM tuning

I had a maintenance window this evening to upgrade a router and attempt to tune the FIB TCAM to be ready for continued IPv4 growth beyond the 512k default on this platform. I'd apply the commands to tune the FIB TCAM, reload, and upon reboot I'd have errors about a FIB Protocol Allocation

Re: [c-nsp] BGP Path Selection and next-hop reachability (IGP vs BGP)

On 11/30/12 7:15 PM, John Neiberger wrote: I thought I'd post an update since I found my answer. Marko Milivojevic answered on another mailing list. As it turns out, the router still compares metrics for the next hop even if they're not both learned from IGPs. So, the path with an OSPF metric of

Re: [c-nsp] loose uRPF on Sup720/3B

On 11/14/12 3:45 AM, Gert Doering wrote: ip verify unicast source reachable-via any allow-default so what is a suppressed verification drop? And, much more important, will it still do that in hardware, or will loose-uRPF (via any) punti it into the software path for some packets? Brian

Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 7K NX-OS Upgrade

On 11/7/12 6:02 AM, Alexander Lim wrote: Do you know what caused the 3 secs blip? How can Cisco claims that it is non-disruptive then? Thanks for sharing. From what I've learned from others, the 'install all' unpacks the new files which run the processes, and then the processes are

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 12008 8/40 Gigabit Link

On 9/11/12 4:08 PM, root net wrote: Had a buddy who said he could send us a 8/40. This long term would be better than our 7200VXR routers. Thinking about a solution without having to upgrade to ASR for now. Want some thoughts on the following: 1. Need to be able to handle full 1 Gigabit of

Re: [c-nsp] 7200 Line protocol bouncing

On 8/30/12 10:49 AM, Michael Malitsky wrote: I am seeing a weird problem on one of my aggregation routers. This is a 7206VXR, with a PA-MC-T3 and a PA-MC-4T1 cards. I terminate about 10 My main question is: can these issues be caused by a router component beyond the PA card (i.e. engine or

Re: [c-nsp] remove spanning-tree without being service effecting

On 8/2/12 7:35 AM, James Urwiller wrote: I have a MSTP ring that I want to remove spanning-tree all together, and manually shut down my dead link. How can I remove or disable spanning-tree without driving to each site? If I use the commands spanning-tree bpdufilter or spanning-tree bpduguard

Re: [c-nsp] remove spanning-tree without being service effecting

On 8/2/12 8:18 AM, James Urwiller wrote: That kind of defeats the whole not service effecting issue.. thanks anyway. He clearly said 'just as a backup'. You clearly said without driving to each site. What do you want? Get over it, there's risk involved in what you want to do (that risk

Re: [c-nsp] VS-S720-10G (6509 VSS Engine) 10G Port Issue

On 6/12/12 11:06 AM, Łukasz Bromirski wrote: In reality, Sup720-10GE sold with the VS prefix is a perfectly normal Supervisor. What is changed is that the fabric matrix is actually 20x20Gbit/s not 18x20Gbit/s, so you get additional 2 channels for 20Gbit/s. Oh, is that for the 6511 chassis?

Re: [c-nsp] WS-X6708-10G-3C and 3CXL and SUP720-3BXL

On 6/12/12 2:07 PM, Aled Morris wrote: The system will operate as if only 3B is deployed so you won't get 3C benefits (not that i think there are that many.) Hopefully it's obvious that a mix of 3BXL and 3C means your system operates as a 3B system. If you're carrying big/full tables,

Re: [c-nsp] QOS difference behavior for GSR and 7609

On 5/14/12 7:54 PM, Xu Hu wrote: Ok, do you heard about the MDRR in the GSR? What's the main purpose of this QOS approach? Yes, we've heard of it. Its purpose is to manage QoS through a 64x64 (or 16x or 128x, platform-dependent) crossbar fabric. pt

Re: [c-nsp] Testing New BGP Provider

On 5/4/12 9:37 PM, Mitch Stoner wrote: Whats the best way to go about testing a new service provider connection with BGP on a production router? Should I put the new connection in a VRF to receive the global routing table and make sure things work as expected? Or do I simply filter all routes

Re: [c-nsp] 7606 to 6509 [BGP hold time issue]

On 5/3/2012 10:13 AM, Scott Granados wrote: You have an MTU mismatch.:) THis is my guess anyway because it really matches closely your issue. +1, or perhaps you have an MTU problem on the underlying transport (both ROUTERS agree on MTU, but the underlying circuit won't pass a full-sized

Re: [c-nsp] C3550-12T - Gig copper ports won't link at 1Gb

On 4/15/12 5:09 PM, graham wrote: I have tried to put the copper interface into speed auto 1000 as well as speed 1000 (with the other side matching) and always results in a not-connect. The command 'speed nonegotiate' doesn't exist. Helping you grasp at straws: have you tried 'mdix auto' on

Re: [c-nsp] 7600 Owners, failure stats wanted

On 1/21/12 8:28 AM, James Bensley wrote: Even if you've never had a failure I'd still like to know, thats just as important. I should also mention that at my previous job, we had an event one fine December afternoon. Three 6509s all fried simultaneously: 3x chassis, 6x sup, 4x linecards.

Re: [c-nsp] side comment on VSS vs 7Ks

On 1/21/12 3:59 PM, chris stand wrote: We have two data centers, one with VSS one with 2 * 7Ks. Both DC have 5548s and UCS chassis with L2 extended between both. I can create a 40Gb or 80Gb port channel from the VSS to both 5Ks and UCS and run L2 L3 over it. Can't do that with 7Ks or anything

Re: [c-nsp] 7600 Owners, failure stats wanted

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 06:19, James Bensleyjwbens...@gmail.com wrote: I can have dual RSPs but how likely are they too fail? I want to know from 7600's owners/managers out there, how many SUPs or RSPs have you had fail on you (or not if non have failed on you), and how long were they in

Re: [c-nsp] 7600 Owners, failure stats wanted

On 1/21/12 8:28 AM, James Bensley wrote: Many of you are mentioning dual-homed customers, which of course is always an option. What I meant though is that it's very rare to find a set up where every single customer is dual-homed. So, in a typical deployment, do your line cards fail long before a

Re: [c-nsp] Event Manager

On 1/16/12 6:15 PM, Mohammad Khalil wrote: Hi all , i am looking for building an applet according to below i will track configuration changes via the syslog pattern CONFIG_I if detected , i will check the output for the show archive config differences if the output of this command was no

Re: [c-nsp] shaping outbound

On 12/24/11 2:49 PM, Dan Letkeman wrote: I'm confused as to when and where it is possible to shape traffic. I have a 50Mbps internet connection from our ISP and I would like to shape some of the download traffic using our 2821. Any idea on how to go about this? Or Am I stuck with buying a

Re: [c-nsp] prefix lists updates and max prefix filters

On 12/8/2011 11:37 AM, Mack McBride wrote: Not filtering announcements isn't really an answer. You run into the same problems with a route-map. The best solution is to use both a route-map and a prefix-filter. Your upstream should also be using a filter. Say what? Nobody's recommending that

Re: [c-nsp] OER Question

On 12/7/2011 2:17 AM, M K wrote: Hi all , Bruce i am asking on the best Cisco forum , is that wrong In this case, yes. What you're doing is a direct violation of the CCIE NDA. As soon as Cisco finds out, you won't be able to attempt your lab again for at least a year, and good luck

Re: [c-nsp] Three ISPs - Three Edge Routers - iBGP Mesh

On 11/22/11 8:41 AM, Mark Mason wrote: Two of our DC's are about to get their 3rd internet drop. Each ISP connection has its own edge router. HSRP is running facing on the LAN side. Please see https://supportforums.cisco.com/message/3496562#3496562 for topology and further discussions. I expect

Re: [c-nsp] OSPF issue

On 11/11/11 6:30 PM, John Elliot wrote: OSPF Issue Hope someone can assist with an ospf problem - We have an existing ospf adj running fine between R1+R2, we have just provisioned a second link, enabled ospf and we see it form adjacency which lasts ~60seconds, then R1 sees R2 as dead, and R2

Re: [c-nsp] 1Gig-10Gig port-channel migration

On 10/13/11 10:24 AM, Phil Mayers wrote: On 13/10/11 16:03, Tim Durack wrote: Next best idea is to migrate the 1Gig port-channel to Po2, and create a new Po1 with 10Gig links (I would like to maintain Po1 as the pop backbone.) Use this opportunity to determine the STP impact. Move links

Re: [c-nsp] 3750X stacking with 3750 ??

On 10/12/11 9:06 AM, Jeff Kell wrote: A 3750X IP Base or IP Services will stack with 3750/3750E, with the usual caveat that the ring will default to the least common denominator (32G for 3750, 64G for 3750E). And that a mixed-platform stack will operate in legacy mode, i.e. no local

Re: [c-nsp] bgp bestpath w/o bgp always-compare-med

On 10/11/11 4:18 AM, Nikolay Shopik wrote: Here is example, first one is oldest, second is youngest, but it still choices last one. While should choice first, because everything else is same. Are you sure the first one is oldest and the second one is youngest? I was under the impression

Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading Sup2 to Sup720 - 6513

On 8/28/11 11:32 PM, cisco group wrote: We would like to replace the supervisors with 2x WS-SUP720-3B in SSO mode. These sups are required to be inserted into slots 7 and 8. I have looked around on the cisco site and have found procedures for upgrading IOS on redundant supervisors but am

Re: [c-nsp] BGP router upgrade

On 8/14/11 8:35 PM, Pete Lumbis wrote: Bottom line, I would under no situation ever consider NPE-G[12] for forwarding Internet peering traffic (wording chosen carefully:). And I have lot of love for them. A completely fair statement, it all comes down to throughput requirements. A hardware

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco UCS Rack servers - C2xxx or C4xxx

On 7/21/2011 4:25 PM, Martin T wrote: Chris, I have no hands-on experience with those servers, but as much as I have read, they seem to be solid x86 servers. In addition, this Cisco Unified Computing System Extended Memory Technology seems to be a nice feature. Pete, except the Cisco Unified

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco Nexus 2248TP interface down/inactive

On 7/21/11 7:28 PM, Renelson Panosky wrote: I am working in this interface 2248TP some of the interface are showing down/inactive. My svi on the core are up/up. I think it maybe a spanning-tree issue but I am not sure. can anyone help ? Is this 2248 dual-homed to two 5k switches? If so, is

Re: [c-nsp] converting N5K to FI6100

On 7/7/11 3:39 PM, krunal shah wrote: I want to achieve this goal to save cost for lab purpose. We have already two 5010s and we do not want to spend more money in buying two extra 6100s for UCS cluster. So when some wants to practice on UCS cluster we can load UCS FI's image on 5010 chassis

Re: [c-nsp] Internet Maintenance Traffic Manipulation

On 6/8/11 11:35 AM, Mark Mason wrote: This post would be for those of you in a DC environment with multiple internet feeds. When carrier X emails about a 12:00 - 6:00 maintenance window for IOS upgrade, reboot, card swap, etc. are you influencing your eBGP traffic away from that carrier during

Re: [c-nsp] cat6500/fwsm performance

On 6/2/11 4:22 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote: Two things to keep in mind: 1) Any one flow cannot exceed 1 Gb/s, since the connection to the FWSM is a 6 port etherchannel. I recall it being two 3Gbps etherchannels, so I'd always assumed no single flow could exceed 3Gbps. The PoXXX

Re: [c-nsp] downlink bgp interconnect best practices

On 5/31/2011 5:50 AM, Gert Doering wrote: We try to separate core + uplink and customer connection routers, so we can do works on core routers witout affecting customers - and vice versa, if we have to reboot a customer connection router, we know which customers are affected and that nothing

Re: [c-nsp] BGP peer/customer routes

On 5/31/2011 5:57 AM, vince anton wrote: So what happens now is that for this more specific customer prefix, I have a specific route saying some AS5 nets are preferable via the peering link than via the direct customer link, and if I want to deliver transit traffic to my customer, my router

Re: [c-nsp] downlink bgp interconnect best practices

On 5/31/2011 11:48 AM, Gert Doering wrote: We do mostly hot-potato routing, that is: if local-pref, path-length and med are all the same, just send out the nearest upstream / peering point. Which would do the right thing in that case :-) - but if your policy is different, it won't. If your

Re: [c-nsp] BGP peer/customer routes

On 5/31/2011 1:31 PM, vince anton wrote: thanks for feedback. seems like different people are going around this in different ways, some allow transit through peering links, and some outright block this from day0 it surprises me that some people seem to be ok with passing transit traffic over a

Re: [c-nsp] Questions Regarding Cisco 3750 switches

On 4/4/2011 11:56 AM, Tom Ammon wrote: To change the switch number in a 3750, use switch X renumber Y where X is the current switch number, and Y is the one you want it to be (1 in this case). Use show switch to see how it's currently configured. I don't think this will fix the OP's request.

Re: [c-nsp] Minimum hardware for IOS XR?

On 3/1/2011 8:49 AM, Glorb Age wrote: Hi NSP, I'm trying to build a test lab for IOS XR, and I'm having trouble figuring out what is the minimum platform and modules I need on a GSR to run the VPLS feature. The Cisco Feature Navigator is no help, since it just tells me that I need PRP to run

Re: [c-nsp] EARL7 Versions

On 2/16/2011 10:49 AM, Benjamin Lovell wrote: If you look at the spec sheets you will notice a few differences. MAC table size, default DRAM, routing performance, etc http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps708/product_data_sheet09186a0080159856.html Most of the other

Re: [c-nsp] 6509 DC power question-

On 2/16/11 3:52 PM, Luke Pack wrote: Greetings everyone, We have a 6509 switch with sup2 engines. For upgrade capability, we have the 2500W DC power supplies in this. I have an A/C unit with the same engines/cards at a separate location, therefore I expect this unit to require the same amount

Re: [c-nsp] continue clause in route-maps

On 2/14/2011 1:03 PM, Yann GAUTERON wrote: Hi ! I would like to apply some sophisticated rules with my prefixes announced with BGP. I saw that Cisco implemented a continue clause that could permit me to achieve my goal. Before implemented such rules on my productive routers, I did some tests

Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 5548P - 1 Gbps support

On 2/8/2011 3:55 PM, Geoffrey Pendery wrote: Yes, your search is correct, and this problem hit us as well. It's supported in hardware, but not yet in software. Future release scheduled for Q2 I think. In the meantime, it gave us transceiver errors on the GLC-SX-MM's. I had transceiver errors on

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco Catalyst 6509-E 4000w P/S

On 12/29/10 5:14 PM, Terry Rupeni wrote: Hi All, We just bought a new 6509-E with 4000w P/S. The specs say it requires a 23 A/240V Input is this the max input current permissible? We have an existing 6KVA UPS with output of 16A max. I've used the Cisco Power Calculator and with all the current

[c-nsp] Sup720-3A: anyone with 'mls mpls enable' experience?

I'm working a school project with a truckload of original Sup720s in 6500s. Given the funding arrangements, replacing these units is, shall we say, unlikely. Should we find issues where MPLS would be beneficial, does anyone have experience with the global command 'mls mpls enable'? If so,

Re: [c-nsp] Sup720-3A: anyone with 'mls mpls enable' experience?

On 12/12/10 11:19 AM, Pete Lumbis wrote: I'm pretty sure that MPLS is only supported on the 3B or higher without a OSM or FlexWAN card. I understood that (meaning, supported) going into the project. However, the command in question exists to enable MPLS support on said older hardware. This

Re: [c-nsp] BGP KEEPALIVE maximum frequency

On 12/4/10 9:38 AM, M. V. wrote: as i said, RFC4271 says: router should send first KEEPALIVE when goes from OpenSent to OpenConfirm. then when first KEEPALIVE of its peer is recieved, it goes to Established state, and starts its KeepAlive-Timer(default=60s). so the next (2nd so far) KEEPALIVE

Re: [c-nsp] High Density T1 aggregation device - migrating to MPLS

On 12/3/2010 12:16 PM, Rick Martin wrote: We are in the planning stages for a conversion to an MPLS infrastructure, we have about 3,000 connections on this statewide network which spans 3 major carriers territory. We expect we will wind up with one vendor at the core. Assuming vendor A wins

Re: [c-nsp] Blackhole Inbound Traffic

On 11/17/10 6:42 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote: Here's a relatively complete example that also incorporates the Team Cymru feeds: http://ipv6canada.com/?p=59 An excellent example, indeed. I will mention that the Team Cymru feeds only get you so far: if you don't ensure that routes within bogon

Re: [c-nsp] high cpu on VIP in 7507

On 7/6/2010 3:10 PM, Troy Beisigl wrote: Not much to the config. I have included both sides of the connection. the other end is a 6500 7507: interface GigabitEthernet6/0/0 description feed to cat1.3/6 bandwidth 100 ip address X.X.X.X 255.255.255.240 load-interval 30 negotiation auto

Re: [c-nsp] Hybrid to Native conversion

Sony Scaria wrote: I have an old 6500 with SUP2 and MSFC2. I Need to convert the configuration to IOS format. Is there any tool available which expedite the process than a manual conversion? Do you have any Sup2/MSFC2 that are already native? If so, format some extra PCMCIA cards in IOS

Re: [c-nsp] Card Throughput - 6148A-GE-TX

Matt Buford wrote: Each range of 8 ports (1-8, 9-16, 17-24, 25-32, 33-40, 41-48) has an ASIC. Each ASIC can do a max of 1 Gb in each direction. If all ports on a group of 8 were to upload and download, their combined throughput would be 1 Gb upload and 1 Gb download. If all ports on the card

Re: [c-nsp] Memory Status in GSR

bharath kondi wrote: Dear Everyone, Kindly check the below Memory status on my GSR and suggest me what need to be done or everything looks okay. ~~ GW-04-KLS-AIMS-MY#show memory free Head Total(b)

Re: [c-nsp] 6509 problem

James Greig wrote: Anyone else have any other thoughts on this? Could it be a bug or a faulty backplane on the 6500 chassis? It looks similar to what I got when I toasted a chassis in November. I didn't capture the console output, but basically the primary Sup was OK but the rest were all

Re: [c-nsp] reverse path filtering doesn't seem to work

Mike wrote: Gang, I have a 3725 with some t1 interfaces. I want to be a good netizen and establish urpf on my customer facing interfaces to ensure they can't send me spoofed traffic. When I enable 'ip verify unicast source reachable-via rx' however, suddenly I can't ping the router on the

  1   2   3   >