Frank Bulk wrote:
The specs say it requires 24 VDC, but I'm wondering if anyone has
successfully operated the 2955T-12 at 12 VDC?
Frank
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
I have a few devices and buildings on campus that I feed at 100FX, both
from 4500s with MTRJ blades and from 3750s with the 100FX SFPs and both
seem to be pretty reliable. I haven't seen the 'live' failure rates on
the 100FX SFPs to be much better or worse than the
From: Brad Henshaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 8:58 AM
To: Eric Van Tol; Arie Vayner (avayner); cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] ME3750 Shaping
You can also do egress rate limitation - 'srr-queue bandwidth limit 10..90'
This limits the egress rate
Hello,
I have been researching defenses against so-called 'man-in-the-middle'
attacks at layer 2. We tried this around three years ago with 3550-48 smi
image using dhcp snooping and dynamic arp inspection. After a time the
switch stopped passing dhcp requests. This was in production, (though
Eric Van Tol wrote:
it seems to me that the proper (and possibly only?) way to do
egress shaping is by using the 'srr-queue bandwidth shape' command
You can also do egress rate limitation - 'srr-queue bandwidth limit 10..90'
This limits the egress rate to a percentage of the physical port
On Saturday 13 September 2008 04:12:32 Will Hargrave wrote:
In the area of larger sites where we have 6500s, especially given the
lack of 100FX support in newer edge switches, we are just trying to get
links up to gigabit. The length constraints can be a major pain, we're
using a combination
Eric Van Tol wrote:
You can also do egress rate limitation - 'srr-queue bandwidth limit 10..90'
This limits the egress rate to a percentage of the physical port speed.
Yes, but this is a limit for all 4 queues combined. It may work for the
layer 3 ports, but not meet the requirements of the
Cisco. The replacement parts are cheap.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Troy Beisigl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This may sound like a dumb question, but does anyone know where the filter
material can be acquired that is used on the 7500 and 12008 routers chassis?
Thanks,
-Troy
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 01:01:57PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
My problem is that the world can reach our border routers but traffic will
not route beyond the border. Internally, we can route traffic no problem..
Have you turned on IPv6 *forwarding* on the box?
You need ipv6
Thank you.. yes, we have enabled it everywhere
Basically a pair of 6509's and a pair of 7606's and they all talk back and
forth. It's in the linkage on the 7606's between BGP and OSPF where the
problem seems to lie;) I can run traceroutes and ping IP's across the
internal network no
Hi there.
I'm having a problem trying to synchronize a Cisco Router across a wan
link with a NTP Server (No-Cisco router).So far i've ruled out packet
filering or firewall blocking as a cause of this.Some other equipments
at the local side of this router actually synchronize with the ntp
server
Thank you very much Bernhard the lack of always was it... damn, should
have it know from Ipv4..;)
Works perfect now, have a linux box up on IPv6 and looks good..
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ traceroute6 www.he.net
traceroute to www.he.net (2001:470:0:76::2), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1
Eric,
Take a 2nd look here:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/metro/catalyst3750m/software/re
lease/12.2_46_se/configuration/guide/swqos.html#wp1282429
Arie
-Original Message-
From: Eric Van Tol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 22:30 PM
To: Arie Vayner
check ipv6 unicast-routing
a. rahman isnaini r.sutan
Paul Stewart wrote:
Hi there.
We have our first IPv6 block advertising to the world (for quite a while
now) and have started to actually route some small blocks of it internally
via OSPF. Our /32 is advertised via eBGP no problem and
14 matches
Mail list logo
