On Tuesday 12 February 2008, you wrote:
On Feb 12, 2008 2:52 PM, Ivan Gasparik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FE ports of ME3400 with default configuration have output queue
limited to 48 packets. It's not enough for burstable traffic,
especially when the uplink of your ME3400 runs at 1Gb/s.
If
Any reason not to look at the Broadband Service Provider Train instead?
12.2(blah)SBblah
We were on the 12.4 train and having issues and moved to SB and its a
lot better.
Lots of features for doing PPoE etc
Kurt Bales wrote:
Hey Guys,
I have a customer with a 7200-G1 acting as an LNS
Its for a simple fact, it was not designed to do so and you might get
different performance and the roadmap inside the BU would be different and
the support from TAC as well.
Plus it would be unfair to compare price and performance of 7600 to an M320
and Juniper would never put an M7i or M10 as
Christian Koch wrote:
my main thoughts are to stray away from this.. does anyone run an
architecture like this now? or have any opinions on WHY to or to not do it?
Depends on your company security policy and if you feel Cisco's security
contexts are as good as physically separated hardware.
Hi All,
IM looking for some opinions..
we are deploying FWSM for a customer firewalls, and someone has brought up
the thought of moving our coproate firewalls (now on asa's) over to these
same FWSM's..
my main thoughts are to stray away from this.. does anyone run an
architecture like this
Hi Dale,
We are in still in process of deploying the FWSM blades and i am still
reading into the product literature, and i really cant say on the future of
the FWSM vs ASA, i believe it could be a great product for virtualizing
managed firewall services, but i am still too new to it, to evaluate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Security Advisory: SQL injection in Cisco Unified
Communications Manager
Document ID: 100358
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20080213-cucmsql
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20080213-cucmsql.shtml
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2008
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Christian Koch wrote:
we are deploying FWSM for a customer firewalls, and someone has brought up
the thought of moving our coproate firewalls (now on asa's) over to these
same FWSM's..
my main thoughts are to stray away from this.. does anyone run an
architecture like
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Christian Koch wrote:
do you mix corporate and customer firewall contexts on the same fwsm
modules?
I work for a large university, so the line between corporate and customer
traffic is somewhat blurry, and the architecture is more like a service
provider than a
Stephen Fulton wrote:
Hi all,
Can anyone recommend a decent open-source SNMP trap receiver that can
also e-mail/sms/whatever alerts based on filtered criteria? I don't
need an NMS, just something to receive the traps (or uses net-snmpd to
do so), process them and then send an alert if
Hehe.
Yes, I say that it's possible.
I was trying it in lab's environment but I didn't hear about any real
implementation of 6500/Sup2 as P-router (without OSM and Flexwan) in a real
networks. Sup2 is very old and it has many restrictions. I think that using
of Sup2 for SP tasks won't be
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
On 2/12/08, Michael K. Smith - Adhost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't believe no one has said Flashlight
Definitely nice to have, but if I could *only* bring 10 items, I don't
think that a flashlight wouldn't be on the list. If all else failed,
Stephen Fulton schrieb:
Can anyone recommend a decent open-source SNMP trap receiver that can
also e-mail/sms/whatever alerts based on filtered criteria? I don't
need an NMS, just something to receive the traps (or uses net-snmpd
to do so), process them and then send an alert if necessary.
On Feb 13, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Thorsten Dahm wrote:
What's about Nagios? Sure, it's a bit overkill for what you want, but
you don't have to use the full featureset if you don't want to.
You still need someone to get said traps into Nagios.
We do that with snmptrapd feeding into snmptt
I had the same problem, but it was normal.
Although the mac address is the same, the inner (customer) vlan is different,
so from customer side
everything is fine.
From provider side, since you're using a common outer vlan, you'll have the
same mac address from 2
different ports, but on the
The solution for the classifier issue is to put a VRF routing instance on
the SUP720 in between the FWSM contexts, so that you don't share a VLAN
between contexts and hence it will not get confused.
Fred Reimer, CISSP, CCNP, CQS-VPN, CQS-ISS
Senior Network Engineer
Coleman Technologies, Inc.
Hey Guys,
Has anyone come across a good app (open source or not) that will monitor the
amount of traffic flowing in/out a particular interface and alert you once a
certain threshold has been reached? Alerting via email would be preferable.
I don't really have the time to invest in writing a
recent versions of MRTG do this.
http://www.cloudnet.com/~tom/mrtg/thresh.html
has better notes than mone on how to set it up.
On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:14 AM, Aaron R wrote:
Hey Guys,
Has anyone come across a good app (open source or not) that will
monitor the
amount of traffic flowing
Hi there,
It looks like im going to have to script this. MRTG thresholds will only do
things when an SNMP OID reaches or exceeds a certain value. Given that the
2^32 counter for the interface octets will reset once reaching 4294967296
this is much less than the threshold I want to set.
I hope
Has anyone come across a good app (open source or not) that will monitor
the amount of traffic flowing in/out a particular interface and alert
you once a certain threshold has been reached?
Cacti will do that - it has a threshold alerting plugin that works quite
well.
B.
Sup2/MSFC2 might be able to do this in the slow path (i.e. when going
via the MSFC), but certainly not when switching/routing packets on the
PFC2. The hardware is just not able to do this.
oli
Pavel Baleshenko mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wednesday, February
13, 2008 9:02 PM:
Hi.
That looks like it will do the trick!
Cheers!
Aaron.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Looney
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:23 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] SNMP traffic monitoring / alerting
Has
22 matches
Mail list logo
