g...@greenie.muc.de (Gert Doering) wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:35:36AM +0100, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote:
...and a very limited subset of platforms comparing to Cisco. In terms
of going forward, IOS is being unified under IOS-XR umbrella (SPs),
NX-OS (DC) and IOS-XE (everything else).
On 11/16/2010 04:13 AM, Benjamin Lovell wrote:
What he said, while adding that the CPU on the DFC is the same CPU as
the SP on the PFC. DFC can still see pretty significant CPU usage as
even if the RP or SP is doing the export the DFC CPU must still do all
the recored creation, aging, etc. Very
Edward,
Some answers inline.
Arie
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Edward Iong
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 08:14
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] IPv6 deployment
Dear All,
We are
On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 08:27:09 am Michael Loftis
wrote:
Ah, sort of. With Juniper there's basically there's one
image for each major product category -- more or less.
So the J series has an image, the M/T another. The MX
has it's image,...
Ummh, not quite:
- the M/MX/T
On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 02:13:47 pm Edward Iong wrote:
1. Can IPv4 and IPv6 devices exist at the same time in
the same LAN?
Yes, this is called dual-stack.
Single-stack is when only one of these IP protocols exists
on the wire.
and can they communicate with each other?
Well, not
Distributed Forwarding Card WS-F6700-DFC3C
SB1121 Processor (Rev 32)
SB-1 CPU at 400Mhz, Implementation 0x401, Rev 0.3
Aivars
Thank you all.
And once again, could anyone tell me what DFC CPU is used in the
WS-X6708-10G-3CXL? I believe that remote command module X show version
will show
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:13:47AM +, Edward Iong wrote:
We are planning to implement IPv6 to our existing IPv4 network.
Good!
There are several things I would like to ask:-
1. Can IPv4 and IPv6 devices exist at the same time in the same LAN?
Yes.
and can they communicate with
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 10:33 +0300, Sergey Nikitin wrote:
And once again, could anyone tell me what DFC CPU is used in the
WS-X6708-10G-3CXL? I believe that remote command module X show version
will show this information.
Switch#show module | incl ^ 6
68 CEF720 8 port 10GE with DFC
Dear All,
Are there any potential Technical issues with ignoring Cisco and
using GLC-LH-SM
rather than SFP-GE-L. What I can figure out is -
with GLC-LH-SM - no monitoring (no DOM)
SFP-GE-L higher cost.
Regards
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
Yes.
Cisco doesn't even support their own optics depending on the device.
Make sure the device you are using supports the GLC vs SFP.
Basically: If you didn't buy the optics with the device, it may not work even
with service unsupported-transciever, even if the optics are cisco purchased.
On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 05:29:46 pm jack daniels
wrote:
Dear All,
Are there any potential Technical issues with ignoring
Cisco and using GLC-LH-SM
rather than SFP-GE-L. What I can figure out is -
with GLC-LH-SM - no monitoring (no DOM)
SFP-GE-L higher cost.
We've been able to run
On 16/11/2010 11:02, Mark Tinka wrote:
We've been able to run GLC-* type modules in routers like
the 7201 with no problem. I haven't tried the reverse on a
switch.
Last time i tried, an NPE-G2 refused to accept a GLC-SX-MM. You can
imagine that this was surprising, to say the least. I will
Hi list,
Short question about the ASR 9006/9010:
Do I need to replace the switch fabric (or something else - like with
the GSR/12000 series when upgrading to 12400/12800) when 100GE is
available? Or do I just buy a new 100GE Linecard and put it into the
chassis?
(We found some money in the
I believed that mpls is not needed on ipv4 RR and vpnv4 RR.
(as RR should not be in the forwarding path)
Now, I came across some examples with mpls enabled on RR and want to verify
if there are
reasons for enabling MPLS in network offering Internet-accees and L3VPNs ?
cheers, keti
I believed that mpls is not needed on ipv4 RR and vpnv4 RR.
(as RR should not be in the forwarding path)
Now, I came across some examples with mpls enabled on RR and want to verify
if there are
reasons for enabling MPLS in network offering Internet-accees and L3VPNs ?
There may be reasons
I would to translate following 7200 QoS template configuration to Catalyst
6500:
class-map match-any PQ
match dscp ef
match mpls experimental topmost 5
policy-map QOS-PE-OUT
class PQ
priority percent 33
class class-default
Does the priority command supported on 6500 or do we have to
yes，core routers always act RR， when no additional investment for network
construction
Stephen.Chen
2010/11/16 selamat pagi keti...@gmail.com
Now, I came across some examples with mpls enabled on RR and want to verify
if there are
reasons for enabling MPLS in network offering
Let me rephrase my question
if RR not in forwarding path, is there a reason for MPLS on RR
2010/11/16 Stephen.Chen cisco@gmail.com
yes，core routers always act RR， when no additional investment for network
construction
Stephen.Chen
2010/11/16 selamat pagi keti...@gmail.com
Now, I
Let me rephrase my question
if RR not in forwarding path, is there a reason for MPLS on RR
no, not really.
I've seen one SP doing it so they can run the same config/features on
RRs compared to PEs and save on testing, and there is one tiny benefit:
If you run the same MTU on all core links
Hello!
Yes, You should upgrade [both] RSP to receive linerate bandwidth on 2x100G line
cards.
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:47:45PM +0100, tim wrote:
Hi list,
Short question about the ASR 9006/9010:
Do I need to replace the switch fabric (or something else - like with
the GSR/12000
Hello,
Lets say we have a MPLS-enabled triangle:
http://i54.tinypic.com/k2lcw2.jpg
Path AB is being crossed by a couple of MPLS TE Tunnels within automatic
bandwidth adjustment (tunnel mpls traffic-eng auto-bw). At the any given point
of time summary bandwidth of these tunnels is never
I will be out of the office starting 12/11/2010 and will not return until
11/09/3000.
Hello, im sorry I wont be able to get back to you as I have left!
If you are external to BNPP please direct your queries to UK Networks
uk@bnpparibas.com or contact them on 0207 595 4948
Internal users
Hi all, I'm working on deploying a UCS system using
iscsi to an EMC with only a pair of 4900M's in
between. I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my
head around what I need to do to enable jumbo frames
to make it from end to end on the storage vlan.
What I've got so far:
1) Two redundant UCS
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:05 AM, john.rut...@bnpparibas.com wrote:
I will be out of the office starting 12/11/2010 and will not return until
11/09/3000.
Hello, im sorry I wont be able to get back to you as I have left!
Easily the best out of office reply I've seen in a while.
Hello,
I have a odd situation. I created a SVI on a 3560 switch, assigned an IP
address(public) without enabling ip routing and I was able to remotely
access the switch.
No default route added or anything like that. So how is it that I am able to
access the switch?
switch is connected to another
Hello group,
I'm curious about the ACE file system and I found this on the Cisco Live
presentation BRKAPP-3003:
Load debug plug-in to access ACE file system
Is this plug-in available somewhere ? What's the procedure in order to load
it ? I see there's one load command available:
load
Not a day too soon :)
Stephen Stack
Systems Administrator - Network
CITCO
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of John Neiberger
Sent: 16 November 2010 16:34
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp]
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:06:43PM -0400, Sharlon R. Carty wrote:
Hello,
I have a odd situation. I created a SVI on a 3560 switch, assigned an IP
address(public) without enabling ip routing and I was able to remotely
access the switch.
No default route added or anything like that. So how is
Was the IP configured manually or received via dhcp? DHCP learned
default route could be injected if the latter.
I believe we can still have a default route, without unicast routing
enabled. I thought we defined unicast routing to be between L3
interfaces on the device, but for management
Hi David,
(L2) MTU is not per VLAN but per physical interface.
Make sure all interfaces in a VLAN are configured for jumbo frames before
configuring jumbo frame support on an SVI.
You have to enable jumbo on ALL your 4900 switches interfaces.
You have to enable jumbo on your UCS (The MTU is
I have never tried to solve this exact issue but you could try using
the priority values to prevent the backup tunnel from preempting
others on that path. I am not sure if these values are honored during
FRR but you could give it a shot.
-Ben
On Nov 16, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Vitaliy Karlov
On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 06:47:15 pm Nick Hilliard
wrote:
Last time i tried, an NPE-G2 refused to accept a
GLC-SX-MM. You can imagine that this was surprising, to
say the least. I will not repeat the sentiments or
language that were expressed by the individuals involved
at the time,
Perfect, thanks Manu. I switched them all to 9000 but
I would have never found the CoS setting. I don't
have CoS defined so I read that in that case it defaults
to best effort in the UCS manager so I hand typed 9000
into the drop down and it took it and now I've got
jumbo frame storage traffic
Lets say we have a MPLS-enabled triangle:
http://i54.tinypic.com/k2lcw2.jpg
Path AB is being crossed by a couple of MPLS TE Tunnels within
automatic
bandwidth adjustment (tunnel mpls traffic-eng auto-bw). At the any
given
point of time summary bandwidth of these tunnels is never
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 13:06 -0400, Sharlon R. Carty wrote:
I have a odd situation. I created a SVI on a 3560 switch, assigned an IP
address(public) without enabling ip routing and I was able to remotely
access the switch.
No default route added or anything like that. So how is it that I am
I have a odd situation. I created a SVI on a 3560 switch, assigned an IP
address(public) without enabling ip routing and I was able to remotely
access the switch.
No default route added or anything like that. So how is it that I am able to
access the switch?
switch is connected to another
We *have* it working on a 7201 running SRE2.
Yep, sounds right. They've been supported since SRC2.
Nick
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:07:12 pm Oliver Boehmer
(oboehmer) wrote:
no, not really.
I've seen one SP doing it so they can run the same
config/features on RRs compared to PEs and save on
testing, and there is one tiny benefit: If you run the
same MTU on all core links (including the
It a little more complicated on the GLC vs SFP parts. The SFP parts are
spec'd to support a higher case temperature then the GLCs. Some
platforms airflow at worst case temperature can not sufficiently cool
GLC, were as SFP parts are spec'd to work at the higher temperatures.
Ian
On 11/16/10 1:57
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 14:59 -0400, Sharlon R. Carty wrote:
Looks like it's that. did a show arp and saw the arp entries.
So best practice is to disable proxy-arp on the interfaces?
Yes, on all neighboring devices. The switch itself isn't a problem, only
devices that route.
Any special reason
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 20:04 +0100, Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:36:06 -0800, Ian Cox wrote
It a little more complicated on the GLC vs SFP parts. The SFP parts are
spec'd to support a higher case temperature then the GLCs. Some
platforms airflow at worst case temperature can
Was an incomplete config. Intention was to add ip routing, gateway, all that
good stuff later on.
was surprised that it was actually accessible remotely.
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Peter Rathlev pe...@rathlev.dk wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 14:59 -0400, Sharlon R. Carty wrote:
Looks
In case there's no ip routing enabled and no ip default-gateway
configured either, the switch will try ARPing the destination IP as it
was directly connected. As highlighted by others, neighboring devices
will reply if proxy-arp is enabled and if they have a valid route
towards that destination.
can you clarify what you mean by provide backup for path AC via ABC?
Looking at the picture alone I'm guessing: are you asking to only use
the path ABC for the tunnel AC if the other tunnels crossing AB leave
enough bandwidth for the AC tunnel? If tunnel AC bw requirements can't
be met on
When i was measuring VSS convergence, i actually noted that it is better to
use LACP or Pagp control protocol in active mode instead of putting a
portchannel in fixed status on.
My explanation for this was: when a portchannel uses LACP or Pagp active
mode, it only starts forwarding from the
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:21:21 +0100, you wrote:
I have some (though not much) sympathy for Cisco's not wanting to
support 3rd party transceivers. Hey, they have to feed their kids and
all that. But I fail to see why they won't support their own
transceivers. That's just plain stupid.
Support
I've been looking at the online doco's (including the wiki on IOS-Nexus
config), I can't find where/if I can do default local preference within the BGP
configuration.
All the command references that I can find references using a set command
within a route-map per neighbour, but I can't find a
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 23:10 +0100, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:21:21 +0100, you wrote:
But I fail to see why they won't support their own
transceivers. That's just plain stupid.
Support takes testing
Testing takes time
Time costs money
Yeah.
I thought I knew how to nail down BGP announcements so that an edge
router shows a uniform face to the rest of the world, but a recent
experience and experiment tells me I was wrong.
Here is the experiment:
[upstream]
|
|
[edge][internal]
upstream and edge are eBGP peers, edge
Hiding internal routing turmoil, as you state it, works best when you are
aggregating/summarizing -- which you are not doing here. Your RIB entry for
192.168.2.0 changes between static and OSPF routes. BGP sees this as a route
change and does its job of notifying neighbors.
This would work
50 matches
Mail list logo
