On (2007-05-21 23:06 +0200), Vincent De Keyzer wrote:
Saku,
thanks for your answer!
However the bug description found on CCO does not seem to cover completely
what we have seen: e.g. applying no ip route-cache to int Gig2/0.801
causes CEF to be disabled on all subinterfaces of Gi2/0.
Dear list,
I'm trying to configure a PPPoE-connection according
to the guide at http://tinyurl.com/yp2p58
This shouldn't be too much of an issue
but for some reason, when it gets to
the part of 'request-dialin'
followed by the protocol selection,
I get to pick everything but PPPoE -
the option
Vinny,
On the 6500 BFD version 1 would be introduced in 12.2(18)SXH. Version 0
is available since 12.2(18)SXE.
On 7600 it is available since 12.2(33)SRB (which is already out).
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps6017/products_feature_guid
e09186a00803fbe87.html
Arie
-Original
Hello list,
I can't find the pinout of the DB-15 connector on the NM-2CE1B.
Can somebody help?
Vincent
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
On Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:15:00PM +0200, Vincent De Keyzer wrote:
I can't find the pinout of the DB-15 connector on the NM-2CE1B.
I'm fairly certain it's this one...
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/access/acs_serv/as5400/hw_inst/mig/54crdcbl.pdf
Simon
--
Simon Lockhart | * Sun
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Security Advisory:
Multiple Vulnerabilities in Cisco IOS While Processing SSL Packets
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20070522-SSL
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20070522-SSL.shtml
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2007 May 22 1300 UTC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Security Advisory: Vulnerability In Crypto Library
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20070522-crypto.shtml
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20070522-crypto.shtml
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2007 May 22 1300 UTC (GMT
I do have that - as mentioned earlier I probably need to use a /64 for
the interface. Unfortunately, I was only allocated a /64 from he.net.
Harold Ritter (hritter) wrote:
Matthew,
Make sure that you enable ipv6 unicast-routing globally. The router
will not send router-advertisement
Looking at the datasheet for the 1-port OC48 POS it says that the
minimum release on the 7600 for that SPA is 12.2(33)SRA but in the
hardware configuration docs for the SIP-400 it give some caveats for
the OC48 SPA when running 12.2(18)SXF... The SIP-400 is supported in
SXE... I'm
Interesting approach..;)
So, in theory you could rate-limit *everything* in access-list 106 except
for the VOIP traffic itself therefore almost guaranteeing X amount of
bandwidth specific to your needs?
in other words:
access-list 106 deny ip any host x.x.x.x
access-list 106 permit ip any any
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:35:25PM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
Interesting approach..;)
So, in theory you could rate-limit *everything* in access-list 106 except
for the VOIP traffic itself therefore almost guaranteeing X amount of
bandwidth specific to your needs?
in other words:
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:48:48PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Tuesday 22 May 2007, Nassess, George wrote:
I am in the process of extending our distributed VoIP
call center to a
partner company, and their networking staff are extremely
adamant that
they do not wish to implement
On Tuesday 22 May 2007, Nassess, George wrote:
I am in the process of extending our distributed VoIP call center to a
partner company, and their networking staff are extremely adamant that
they do not wish to implement QoS on their remote LAN, the DS3 link that
the voice traffic will traverse,
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:46:39PM -0400, Eric Kagan wrote:
Who or why are people against using a policy map that allows up to x of
bandwidth for the specified (ACL, class-map) but is available for all other
traffic when there is no VOIP ? This seems backwards / worse to me to
restrict the
Hi,
Whats the difference btw both this cards and which would suit an ISP
environment running BGP, IPv6 etc?
/Kana
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
Harold Ritter \(hritter\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oops. I guess I should have looked at that first ;0) I don't understand
you got assigned a /64. I though the smallest block that could be
assigned to a customer site was /48.
It's actually anywhere from a /64 to a /48, in the ARIN region
Kanagaraj Krishna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Whats the difference btw both this cards and which would suit an ISP
environment running BGP, IPv6 etc?
The NSE-1 was an oddball card even in its day. End of software
maintenance for it was back in 2005. It has similar performance to
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Security Advisory: Vulnerability In Crypto Library
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20070522-crypto.shtml
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20070522-crypto.shtml
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2007 May 22 1300 UTC (GMT
I have a 3745 with a single DS-3 interface that carries a normal mix of
data traffic and some g.729 and g.711 traffic to a 7206VXR/NPE400 on the
other end. I am seeing no errors, but showing output drops at about 70%
utilization on the DS-3 and about 25% cpu. Would you think it's possible
that the
Looking at the datasheet for the 1-port OC48 POS it
says that the minimum release on the 7600 for that SPA is
12.2(33)SRA but in the hardware configuration docs for the
SIP-400 it give some caveats for the OC48 SPA when running
12.2(18)SXF...
Never trust a data sheet.
Release Notes
Interestingly, Cisco's feature navigator doesn't list
12.2(33)SRB on the 7600 as supporting BFD 1.
IMO, Feature Navigator isn't worth the bandwidth for anything
related to hardware-forwarding platforms.
Unfortunately, *because* of Feature Navigator, the release notes
are also becoming less
I am trying to select an IOS for a 26xx router and the ADSL WIC. The
doc's on this WIC mention 12.1 IOS version that are not available. The
tools at Cisco.com for selecting IOS to match your hardware do not
have an option for the ADSL WIC 26xx. Can anyone point me in the
right direction ?
Which WIC are you using, ADSL or ADSL-DG?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of james edwards
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:42 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] IOS for ADSL WIC on 2600
I am trying to select an IOS for a 26xx
On 5/22/07, Scott Granados [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which WIC are you using, ADSL or ADSL-DG?
ADSL.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
Then you're options are pretty wide open. I'm running 12.3-22 with
IP/IDS/FW/3des. That card is supported widely.
-Original Message-
From: james edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re:
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:47:15PM -0500, Dan wrote:
We have a voip system we have been running in our department now for
about a year. Only 12 phones, connected through various wireless links
with throughput of up to 40mbit. Speed is definitely not an issue for
us, but we notice glitches
26 matches
Mail list logo
