99% of those USB to Serial adaptors are using the same chipset, called
Prolific something, it doesn't matter too much which vendor driver you use,
it may work anyway. If you want I can send you a generic driver I've got once
that I used on a cable that I've got from the office and didn't have
At 02:43 PM 12-09-08 -0400, Rodney Dunn wrote:
Rodney,
On a related note, we are seeing input overruns on almost all native GigaE
ports on the NPE-G1. Example on 12.4(21):
GigabitEthernet0/2 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is BCM1250 Internal MAC, address is 0009.446d.ac1a (bia
At 02:16 PM 12-09-08 -0400, Rodney Dunn wrote:
I don't suspect that is going to help because the ignores
are not increasing that would point to:
CSCse05447
Externally found moderate defect: Resolved (R)
7200 ethernet interfaces should not throttle on input queue full drops
Most likely you are
On a related note, we are seeing input overruns on almost all native GigaE
ports on the NPE-G1. Example on 12.4(21):
On the other side, of those NPE-G1 ports, do you see any flow control from
them? I've never seen a G1's counters show pause frame that it sends, but
even watching them
Greetings!
I am thinking about a scenario, which is maybe quite common, but I do
not know how to make that work.
Say that an AS1 is receiving full BGP table from multiple upstreams, for
example AS100 and AS200. AS1 has a customer, say AS2. There is one
Ethernet physical connection between
It's minimal, but RSP720-3CXL is going to require a 7600, though if you
are willing to trade the MSFC4 for VSS, you can go with a VS-Sup720-3CXL.
Either one is going to force you off of 12.2SXF.
Since the difference between 3B and 3C mainly seems to be number of MAC
addresses, a Sup720-3BXL
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Rick Kunkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I've hit the dreaded error message on my Sup2:
%MLSCEF-SP-7-FIB_EXCEPTION: FIB TCAM exception, Some entries will be
software switched
1) Try filtering on anything less than /24s and pointing default
routes to your
my apologies, i seem to have read through your original to quickly
2008/9/14 Tomas Hlavacek [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello Christian,
thanks for reply! Maybe I do not see some obvious solution with MED...
The point is, that I need to route traffic from all of my upstreams to my
customer AS2 via
I got curious last week when I saw this thread. From my (AS 26296)
point of view, there aren't a whole lot of routes in the /25 to /29
range, maybe a couple hundred total when I looked at it last week. The
/24s were huge, about 142,000. I'm curious how many of those /24s are
covered by larger
I would be interested in the results of such an experiment (I was about
to research this this week myself).
Church, Charles wrote:
I got curious last week when I saw this thread. From my (AS 26296)
point of view, there aren't a whole lot of routes in the /25 to /29
range, maybe a couple
On Monday 15 September 2008 10:48:41 Mark Tinka wrote:
The x in 100x is not the number of slots, but simply
the RU size.
Not sure what you're getting at.
Disregard.
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
On a 7600, you can use Sup720 or RSP720, but you can't use
Sup720-10Gs, which are quite nice...
But you can use RSP720-10G, which IMO are even more nice,
because they have the MSFC4.
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Hello Christian,
thanks for reply! Maybe I do not see some obvious solution with MED...
The point is, that I need to route traffic from all of my upstreams to
my customer AS2 via one path and any other traffic from my AS or from my
other customers via another path facing AS2 too. So the
On Monday 15 September 2008 04:52:40 Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists
wrote:
AFAIK, Cisco don't have a 3-slot model of the ASR1000.
The x in 100x is not the number of slots, but simply the
RU size.
Not sure what you're getting at.
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
use meds
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Tomas Hlavacek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings!
I am thinking about a scenario, which is maybe quite common, but I do not
know how to make that work.
Say that an AS1 is receiving full BGP table from multiple upstreams, for
example AS100 and
MED isn't going to solve this problem.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Koch
Sent: Monday, 15 September 2008 9:01 AM
To: Tomas Hlavacek
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] separation of transit, peerings and this-AS
Hello Ben and all,
thanks for reply. First thing is that I am only trying to set up a
proof-of-concept using small old boxes which are not doing MPLS at all.
In my lab scenario one box stays for one AS.
When it comes to deployment of the solution - whatever it is - to my
real network, it
Dean Rasheed [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
foo.char and foo.varchar have similarly unexpected behavior; I think
that's probably the end of it, though, since those are the only types
that CoerceViaIO will take as targets.
... and also any user defined domains based on those, which is
what I
Just out of curiosity what were main points that left you
wanting?
QinQ termination, EoMPLS, VPLS.
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
AFAIK, Cisco don't have a 3-slot model of the ASR1000.
The x in 100x is not the number of slots, but simply the RU size.
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
20 matches
Mail list logo
