[c-nsp] issue with basic access-list reordering

Rtr (config) #exit Rtr#sh run | inc access-list access-list 10 permit 10.1.0.154 access-list 10 remark NTP access access-list 10 permit 10.1.0.151 Does anyone know why this happens? It's driving me crazy. Thanks. Ruben Alvarez Technical Contractor | NWEA PHONE 503.624.1951 | FAX

Re: [c-nsp] issue with basic access-list reordering

Thanks. That sort of worked. I was doing a 'no access-list 10' before I added the new list. But this time I reordered them and it worked. So I added the remark, added .154, then added .151. weird. Ruben Alvarez Technical Contractor  |  NWEA PHONE 503.624.1951  |  FAX 503.639.7873 DIRECT

Re: [c-nsp] OSPF NSSA question

That does look like it would work for me. Thanks for all the input. -Original Message- From: Ivan Pepelnjak [mailto:i...@ioshints.info] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:50 AM To: 'Ruben Alvarez'; 'Mateusz Blaszczyk' Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: RE: [c-nsp] OSPF NSSA

Re: [c-nsp] OSPF NSSA question

? The three routers have thousands of single host routes spread out over each router. The ABR knows which router has each host and summarizes to area 0. -Original Message- From: Mateusz Blaszczyk [mailto:blah...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:10 AM To: Ivan Pepelnjak Cc: Ruben

Re: [c-nsp] OSPF NSSA question

Yes the routers in area 1 are set to redistribute connected and static. They do DSL aggregation and if you can imagine I need some flexibility with those addresses (approx /20.) I'll move IP pools and /30 -/29 networks from router to router as customers come and go. I like how it's setup now

Re: [c-nsp] OSPF NSSA question

To: Ruben Alvarez Subject: Re: [c-nsp] OSPF NSSA question Hi there, you should take a peak to http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094a88 .shtml#definestub NSSA totally Stubby area On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Ruben Alvarez r...@opusnet.com wrote

[c-nsp] OSPF NSSA question

Hello, I have a question. I have recently setup a second OSPF area. The ABR has three routers connected to it (area 1) in a hub and spoke configuration. The routers get a default route to the ABR via default information originate. Now the ABR has all the N2 routes for the three routers. But

Re: [c-nsp] OSPF NSSA question

, 2009 12:34 PM To: Ruben Alvarez Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] OSPF NSSA question Ruben, All routers in an OSPF area have to have the same OSPF topology database. So unless you put each router in its own area there is no really a good way around it. Best Regards, -mat 2009/7

Re: [c-nsp] Ping priority on Cisco devices

removed the null route and it's rock solid. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:t...@toybox.placo.com] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:07 AM To: Ruben Alvarez Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Ping priority on Cisco devices Hi Ruben, If you

[c-nsp] Ping priority on Cisco devices

All, I've heard that Cisco devices handle ICMP at a low priority. I found one post describing it handled in process-switching and not fast-switching. Does anyone have an article that explains that process and is it configurable? The reason I ask is I see about 4% packet loss when I ping devices

[c-nsp] Cisco IOS for broadband aggregation

Hi All, I'm upgrading IOS on my c7206VXR with an npe-300 and: UBR7200-I/O-2FE/E PA-A3-T3= PA-IMA-T1= PA-4E= I'm currently using 122-28.SB2 and noticed a 122-31.SB. Is anyone using the 12.2(31)SB instead of the 12.2(28)SB? I've been looking online and haven't seen much about it. I assume it's

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco IOS for broadband aggregation

in the Actiontec CPE. I figured I'd give the newer IOS a try before I start debugging PPP or radius. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Rinse Kloek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 1:14 PM To: Roddy Strachan Cc: Ruben Alvarez; Cisco-nsp Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco IOS

[c-nsp] Switchport has high Total output drops

Hi All, I have a Catalyst 6509 FE port with a high level of total output drops. It is connected to a 3640 router with an 10M Eth port. It looks like there is about 5Mbps of traffic being dropped at the switch interface. I did an RX and TX packet capture at the switch port. The RX was normal

Re: [c-nsp] Netflow Question

Thanks. Great information. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andre Beck Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 7:28 AM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Netflow Question Hi, [I rearranged the order of lines in the following for

[c-nsp] spanning-tree question

Hi All, I've setup four switches for failover running PVST+. All the links between switches are trunks and several VLAN exist on all switches. Spanning-tree is blocking ports predictably and it's working, but since then I am getting a high amount of unidirectional discards on the ports

Re: [c-nsp] Cat6509 and transparent firewall

All, The first solution I tried works. You can add a ip address secondary on a VLAN interface. Works great. -Original Message- From: Richard Golodner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 6:28 PM To: 'Ruben Alvarez' Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Cat6509 and transparent

[c-nsp] Cat6509 and transparent firewall

Hello, I have a client with a transparent firewall connected to my Cat 6509. Its running PF firewall running on a server and currently I have then on a VLAN with an interface VLAN as their gateway. The client has requested more IP addresses. They don't want to renumber and I can't expand their

Re: [c-nsp] Cat6509 and transparent firewall

Very good. I have options. I'll give those a try. -Original Message- From: Valentin Stoicescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 2:52 PM To: Ruben Alvarez Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cat6509 and transparent firewall Ruben Alvarez wrote

Re: [c-nsp] Cat6509 and transparent firewall

No NAT. we are testing this in a lab so I'll know if it works beforehand. I'm going to trunking with the PF or secondary VLAN. -Original Message- From: Richard Golodner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 2:00 PM To: 'Ruben Alvarez' Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Cat6509

[c-nsp] rate-limiting a vlan interface on cat 6000

Hello, I'm attempting to rate-limit an interface VLAN on my Catalyst 6509 w/sup2 (IOS 12.2). At first I tried a policy-map, but I get an error when I try to apply the policy-map in the output direction: MQC features are not supported in output direction for this interface I tried it the other

[c-nsp] upgrading ROMMON on a SUP2

All, I went through the procedure to upgrade the ROMMON on a SUP2 running IOS. If I do a #show rom-monitor slot 1 sp, I see the new image is running. Problem is [ctrl-break] doesn't work anymore to get into ROMMON. Anyone have any information about this? Thanks.