On 06/23/2010 07:34 PM, Drew Weaver wrote:
The actual machine for:
Internet 10.1.164.42146 0030.48bf.3230 ARPA Vlan643
Was down at the time (like completely down...) and I wouldn't have
expected to even see this in the sh ip arp vlan 643 output at all,
Well, from your data
Hello,
As I understood, the question was about posibility of upgrading 3C to 3CXL by
adding
3CXL DFC to it. It was possible to do such upgrade with 3BXL (by adding
WS-F6K-PFC3BXL=). I had done it.
Is it possible to do the same with 3CXL systems? There is no WS-F6K-PFC-3CXL
in GPL. There is
On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 18:38 -0400, Lobo wrote:
We're in the process of purchasing some RSP720-3CXL-10GEs for a 7604
and one vendor has told us that they have some RSP720-3C-10GE cards
plus PFC3CXL daughter cards which they claim that when combined
equates to a regular RSP720-3CXL-10GE. Is
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Peter Rathlev wrote:
We did it with PFC3B versions of the Sup720
that were upgraded to PFC3BXL some years ago.
We dit it with 3BXL too. The question was about 3CXL. The difference is that
an upgrade Sup720 3B-3BXL is officially available and RSP720 3C-3CXL is not.
--
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 08:32 +0100, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 06/23/2010 07:34 PM, Drew Weaver wrote:
Internet 10.1.164.42146 0030.48bf.3230 ARPA Vlan643
Well, from your data above, the arp entry age is only 146 seconds; by
default the ARP entry will live for hours. They're not
On 24/06/10 09:58, Peter Rathlev wrote:
It's minutes in the ARP table, so the MAC timeout is still the most
probable explanation.
Doh. Of course. How embarrassing... ;o)
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
In addition you can check this with the following command:
router-x#show platform hardware pfc mode
PFC operating mode : PFC3CXL
router-x#
For what is worth:
For unknown reason(s) we had to add/swap some linecards and end up with a
chassis having only 3CXL cards (including RSP3CXL)
But this
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 06:38:16PM -0400, Lobo wrote:
We're in the process of purchasing some RSP720-3CXL-10GEs for a 7604 and
one vendor has told us that they have some RSP720-3C-10GE cards plus
PFC3CXL daughter cards which they claim that when combined equates to a
regular
Hi all
I've got two switches 3560
group with 2xFE on both switches and inteconnected together.
port channel is L2
2 VRFs - ivan, mark
4 VLANs:
- vlan 100 VRF ivan for interconnection between swtiches
- vlan 11 VRF ivan for customer's connection
- vlan 200 VRFmark for interconnection between
Did anyone actually give any recommendations?
I'm looking for the same advice to run BGP, OSPF maybe L2TPv3 later
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Kenny Sallee
Sent: jeudi 7 janvier 2010 1:49
To:
Hi Rens,
We are running the same version on 1004 and it's working perfectly.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Rens r...@autempspourmoi.be wrote:
Did anyone actually give any recommendations?
I'm looking for the same advice to run BGP, OSPF maybe L2TPv3 later
-Original Message-
Are there any real-world data available for the performance of the
FWSM when using IPv6 (actually multi-tenant IPv6 and IPv4). A
Networkers' presentation I saw suggested that IPv6 forwarding was
punted to the CPU rather than performed in hardware; is this still the
case and is it an architectural
Thanks for the tip. I'm having the vendor issue the command to verify
for us.
Our main concern is just making sure that we'll have the 1million IPv4
routes and 256K netflow capabilities for this box.
Thanks!
Jose
On 6/24/2010 5:56 AM, Frédéric LOUI wrote:
In addition you can check this
Have had a couple of questions asked so I am following up here as well.
All the equipment has Enterprise licenses with FCOE, multi-VDC, feature
licensing
Access to the networks would be via LogMeIn remote web services
1000V is installed but the VCenter is not currently reachable so no extra
Nobody running 2.6?
L2TPv3 available since 2.6
_
From: mounir.moha...@gmail.com [mailto:mounir.moha...@gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Mounir Mohamed
Sent: jeudi 24 juin 2010 13:44
To: Rens
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002
Hi Rens,
We are running the same
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 22:00, Richey myli...@battleop.com wrote:
I've been looking around and can't find a clear cut answer to this question.
Is it possible to loop up a far end T1 smart jack using a PA-MC-T3 in a
7206? Often I open a ticket with the lec and they will take an hour or two
to
On Jun 24, 2010, at 8:53 AM, Andy Koch wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 22:00, Richey myli...@battleop.com wrote:
I've been looking around and can't find a clear cut answer to this question.
Is it possible to loop up a far end T1 smart jack using a PA-MC-T3 in a
7206?
yes, there is.
I
Hi Billy
thanks a lot. Can you send me that doc? Link isn't working :-(
Regards
Ivan
On 24 June 2010 14:16, Billy Guthrie b...@billyguthrie.com wrote:
When you configure an etherchannel bundle, the frames are distributed
across the individual bundled links deterministically; however, the
In our lab setup, we have 2 full internet feeds (IPv4 / IPv6) thus ~ 67 +
v6 prefixes
Netflow v9 is working without any issue so far (without sampling). However we
did not test netflow v9 with MPLS features.
According to my technical representative, on 8x10GE card with 3CXL, NDE is
handled
The link doesn't work because the whole line is broken in two, there is a
missing part in the link that is continued in the line after.
Just copy/paste the whole text that starts at http and up to where it ends
with .shtml
Ziv
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
I was hoping to avoid having to go to the colo late at night. We did
finally hear from the customer. A breaker had tripped and they person on
duty had no idea where the breakers were in the building.
Richey
-Original Message-
From: joe mcguckin [mailto:j...@via.net]
Sent: Thursday,
On 24/06/10 14:53, Frédéric LOUI wrote:
In our lab setup, we have 2 full internet feeds (IPv4 / IPv6) thus ~
67 + v6 prefixes Netflow v9 is working without any issue so far
(without sampling). However we did not test netflow v9 with MPLS
features.
Sampling on the PFC/DFC platforms probably
Phil Mayers wrote:
Sampling on the PFC/DFC platforms probably doesn't do what you want it
to do. It still captures all flows; just only exports a subset. This
saves neither TCAM nor significant CPU at the export side.
Interesting, if this is the case, what are folk doing to reduce NDE CPU
On 24/06/10 15:38, David Freedman wrote:
Phil Mayers wrote:
Sampling on the PFC/DFC platforms probably doesn't do what you want it
to do. It still captures all flows; just only exports a subset. This
saves neither TCAM nor significant CPU at the export side.
Interesting, if this is the
On Thursday 24 June 2010 08:43:43 pm Rens wrote:
Nobody running 2.6?
We are running IOS XE 2.6 a.k.a 12.2(33)XNF.
No major dramas save for other stuff I've complained about
in the past.
BGP, IS-IS, IPv6, MPLS, uRPF, 802.1AX (no ingress QoS
support on LACP bundles, though) all seem to work
On 24/06/10 16:45, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 24/06/2010 15:19, Phil Mayers wrote:
Also, be aware that DFC/PFC platforms (until recently) only generate flows
for packets which ingress as plain IPv4.
Or IPv6. Except if you're using L2 ipv6 netflow, you can see the entries
on the pfc, but NDE
Ross,
Thanks. The first one is already in our config; we were thinking
about configuring no spanning-tree vlan 1-4095 in a maintenance
window. I hope that won't break our single MST instance but does
kill off all PVST+ stuff.
Make sure you are running SXF or newer. Previous versions of
On 24/06/2010 15:19, Phil Mayers wrote:
Also, be aware that DFC/PFC platforms (until recently) only generate flows
for packets which ingress as plain IPv4.
Or IPv6. Except if you're using L2 ipv6 netflow, you can see the entries
on the pfc, but NDE won't export them to a collector. Sigh.
On 24/06/10 16:53, j.vaningensche...@utwente.nl wrote:
Any idea what the trigger is?
Last two times, it happened after a reload of one of the Cat6k's. First
was planned reload, second time was a crash (reason unknown). After the
device came back up, the 10 GE port to a core HP 5400 in the
Did a quick search and found that IPv6 packet are still processed by
the CPU not the ASICs on the FWSM. Also only works in routed, not
transparent mode. I don't know any hard numbers for forwarding
performance for the CPU but I would guess it's unacceptably low.
As for software versus
Le 24 juin 2010 à 16:19, Phil Mayers a écrit :
On 24/06/10 14:53, Frédéric LOUI wrote:
In our lab setup, we have 2 full internet feeds (IPv4 / IPv6) thus ~
67 + v6 prefixes Netflow v9 is working without any issue so far
(without sampling). However we did not test netflow v9 with MPLS
You can use this URL for guidance:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps708/products_qanda_item09186a00809a7673.shtml.
Although it does not specifically show the behavior with PFC3CXL installed,
the trending is the same - the lowest common denominator of PFC/DFC that is
identified
I've heard rumors from our Cisco acct SE that FWSMv2 will do IPv6 in Hw;
right now with transparent mode one can pass IP protocol type 41 but can
not actually write any IPv6 ACLs.
--
Regards,
Ge Moua
Network Design Engineer
University of Minnesota | OIT - NTS
--
On 6/24/10 11:09 AM,
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Benjamin Lovell wrote:
Did a quick search and found that IPv6 packet are still processed by the CPU
not the ASICs on the FWSM. Also only works in routed, not transparent mode. I
don't know any hard numbers for forwarding performance for the CPU but I
would guess it's
On 2010-06-24 19:44, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
I haven't done any real-world tests because the vast majority of our FWSMs
are running in transparent mode, but an SE I spoke with seemed to feel
pretty strongly that the performance would be unacceptably low.
IPv6 is done on FWSM only on the
On 2010-06-24 10:25, Dmitry Valdov wrote:
We dit it with 3BXL too. The question was about 3CXL. The difference is that
an upgrade Sup720 3B-3BXL is officially available and RSP720 3C-3CXL is not.
You can do it if you have the PFC3CXL card (available as spare for
6500 Sups), it was never
Hi all.
Can someone tell me what might be wrong. I have a router connected with 2
neighbors ( R2 ).
Setup.: - R0 - R1 - R2 - R3
The isis routing process on R2 don't see any L2-routes from R1, but R1 has L2
routes.
R2 can se L2 routes from R3, and R1 an see L2 routes from R0. The
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 14:41 +0100, Ivan Šimko wrote:
On 24 June 2010 14:16, Billy Guthrie b...@billyguthrie.com wrote:
Document may or may not help:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk213/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094714.shtm
thanks a lot. Can you send me that doc? Link isn't
This is a strange issue that I have noticed on a 3560G that we have
deployed. We have two servers, on different ports, controlled by different
ASICs. Each port negotiates a 1000mb/s link, but I cannot get more than
11MB/s (88mb/s) of traffic between the two ports. I conducted the following
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Brandon Ewing wrote:
This is a strange issue that I have noticed on a 3560G that we have
deployed. We have two servers, on different ports, controlled by different
ASICs. Each port negotiates a 1000mb/s link, but I cannot get more than
11MB/s (88mb/s) of traffic between
Hi Arne,
Please send IS-IS configurations, what adjacencies are up, and what your link
state databases look like.
Thanks,
Tony
On Jun 24, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Arne Larsen / Region Nordjylland wrote:
Hi all.
Can someone tell me what might be wrong. I have a router connected with 2
Duplex mis-match? Have you checked the interface stats on both ends? Have you
tried to force 1000/full on all interfaces concerned?
-b
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jon Lewis
Sent: Thursday, June 24,
Sorry about top posting.
Try to transfer a large file via ftp between the two hosts using the hash '-h'
switch. If the hashes are choppy, then that would be indicative of a dup
mis-match.
-b
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
I wonder what kind of speed you will get if you connected the two
server's NIC directly to each other and did the test so you can take
the switch out of the equation.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Bill Blackford
bblackf...@nwresd.k12.or.us wrote:
Sorry about top posting.
Try to transfer a
Hello,
I got a quick question, when the csm is probing the real servers, what source
ip does the csm use for the probe?.
~Sony
Sent from BlackBerry® wireless
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
I need to QoS SIP traffic on 60 vlans (per GigE port) on several GiGE ports.
Can this be done in hardware on the 3560?
If not, can you suggest another Cisco switch/router that can?
Thanks,
Joe
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, ёukasz Bromirski wrote:
On 2010-06-24 10:25, Dmitry Valdov wrote:
We dit it with 3BXL too. The question was about 3CXL. The difference is
that
an upgrade Sup720 3B-3BXL is officially available and RSP720 3C-3CXL is
not.
You can do it if you have the PFC3CXL card
47 matches
Mail list logo
