Hey guys,
We currently have a WS-SUP32-GE-3B where the SFP ports are not coming
online. Is there a test that can be run from the switch to detect if
there is a hardware failure? A sh module indicates that the SUP is ok..
We are thinking about reseating the SUP as it is in hot standby with
Leaving the signup/billing page and access control aside, most of the
SOHO gateway products do this. I've noticed it first on my home ZyXEL
accidentally when messing with my gf's notebook IP config - she had a
static 10.x.x.x assignment and the home network is of course
192.168.1.0. Try this at
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 04:53:56PM +0200, Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 09:09 -0400, Tim Durack wrote:
This is a mystery to me:
I've got a few new VS-S720-10G-3C Sups that work just fine with Kingston 1GB
CF. I've also got some old SUP720-3Bs that refuse to recognise anything
Do I need to supply both power supplies with an AB side for redundancy
or will I have redundancy if I have the A side of PS1 and PS2 connected?
Thanks
dave
--
Dave Weis
Internet Solver
Your Technology Partner
515-224-9229
www.internetsolver.com
Ok, thanks, the problem I'm seeing follows, note that am not using as-override
but instead allow-as in on the CE router, I have a very specific reason for
doing this
(I'm preserving the AS_PATH but instead using SoO to do some site based
filtering)
It seems not to work, as you can see in my
I've been digging around and it looks like the culprit might be the
manufacturer string reported by the cf.
Old Kingston's report as Toshiba, whereas new report as Kingston. Old work
in the 3Bs only, new work in 3B/3C.
My guess is the cf/ata adapter on the 3Bs doesn't recognise the new string
as
L2TPv3?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Schwimer
Sent: dinsdag 2 september 2008 19:23
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Running MPLS across non-MPLS networks
I have a situation where I need to run MPLS
Tim Durack wrote:
This is a mystery to me:
I've got a few new VS-S720-10G-3C Sups that work just fine with Kingston 1GB
CF. I've also got some old SUP720-3Bs that refuse to recognise anything
other than Cisco CF. Tried formatting, upgrading rommon (8.5(2)), dd'ing
Cisco flash to Kingston etc.
And that's what I'm trying to do, but apparently not all Kingston cf is
created equal.
My guess is if you do a show disk0: all the Kingston cf will show up as a
Toshiba something or other.
Tim:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Justin Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Durack wrote:
This is a
The power supplies on the ME3400s have 2 inputs, for breaker
redundancy.. some models have to physical power supplies, some have only
one - in all cases, each supply has 2 inputs. If your model has 2 power
supplies, you can hookup just the A side of each unit, and you'll be fine.
Dave Weis
Please quantify most. That's not been my experience.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tomas Daniska
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 4:08 AM
To: Adam Piasecki; Chris Boyd
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] How
The 3750 does not support Ipv6 output port ACL's but does support output
router ACL's. You need the advanced IP Services IOS feature set for
output router ACL's.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Tuesday,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Security Advisory: Remote Access VPN and SIP Vulnerabilities in
Cisco PIX and Cisco ASA
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20080903-asa
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2008 September 3 1600 UTC (GMT
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
I've done a lot of reading on this (cisco.com, this list, etc.), with the
conclusion that this supervisor engine is likely just at the end of its
Hi Rick,
I've done a lot of reading on this (cisco.com, this list,
etc.), with the conclusion that this supervisor engine is
likely just at the end of its useful lifetime,
If you need a full table then yes.
Is there a show command I can use to find the usage in
the TCAM?
I think 'show mls
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Spurgeon
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Crash bug in SXH3
This bug in combination with an apparent hardware error on a Sup720
left one of our core routers equipped with dual sup720s crashed and
sitting in
We are informed that SXF code also has the route-map bug, but we have
more confidence in that code (having removed route-maps in it many
times without problems) so we have reverted to SXF6 while awaiting a
new SXH build.
SHX4 is a quarter away, any sightings of a SXH3a on the horizon ?
Hi,
times without problems) so we have reverted to SXF6 while awaiting a
new SXH build.
any reason for an SXF6 so old? eg why not SXF12 ?
alan
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
I don't think you can put an RSP720 in a 6500 chassis. There is the VS
720 with the 3CXL PFC, but that is about $8K more. I don't think you
can get the 3CXL in a 6500 without getting the 10gig ports.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Tim Durack wrote:
And that's what I'm trying to do, but apparently not all Kingston cf is
created equal.
My guess is if you do a show disk0: all the Kingston cf will show up
as a Toshiba something or other.
7613-1#show sup-bootdisk: all
-#- --length-- -date/time-- path
1
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Christian Bering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Yes. For a full table you need to upgrade to an RSP720-3CXL.
And even the SUP720 can manage too, as long as it has the
magic XL in the end. :-)
Yeah but since the list price for the RSP720-3CXL is the same as
Scott,
I believe you will need a public /30 if you want to do NAT on the
Cisco. Your dialer would be the ip nat outside and the ethernet
connection with all the 192.168.x.y/24 addresses would be the ip nat
inside interface.
This should take care of outbound NAT:
ip nat inside source list
Doing this in a unit with 2 PSUs will give you PSU redundancy, should
one fail. It will also give you breaker/fuse redundancy, should one
pop. However it won't give you power source redundancy. You still need
a B feed connected to a PSU to get redundancy for the power source.
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 21:53 +0200, Christian Bering wrote:
Yeah but since the list price for the RSP720-3CXL is the same as the
list price for the SUP720-3BXL, I don't see a reason not to go for the
RSP. Does one exist?
Isn't the RSP720 strictly 7600? Seems OP uses a Cat6500. And it
introduces
My understanding of the SXH3 release notes was that monolithic IOS
(Adv. IP Services feature set) requires 256MB of SP(Switching
Processor) memory (which is the ME6524 default) and 512MB of
RP(Routing Processor) memory (also the ME6524 default).
I've opened a TAC case (SR 609292161, if any Cisco
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 09:22:27PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
times without problems) so we have reverted to SXF6 while awaiting a
new SXH build.
any reason for an SXF6 so old? eg why not SXF12 ?
The usual reason: being very conservative with core/border gear.
SXF6 was
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 02:56:13PM -0500, Church, Charles wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Spurgeon
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Crash bug in SXH3
This bug in combination with an apparent hardware error on a Sup720
left one of
Is it possible to configure two 6509's to share DHCP information so that
if the active HSRP router goes down and the standby comes up it doesn't
generate a bunch of ip conflicts? Or do I need to maintain a separate
scope on each HSRP member?
Robert Teller
Washington Dental Service
Network
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 05:23:00PM -0500, Charles Spurgeon wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 09:22:27PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
times without problems) so we have reverted to SXF6 while awaiting a
new SXH build.
any reason for an SXF6 so old? eg why not SXF12 ?
The
If you configure the ip dhcp data base command to write to a common share, say
a tftp share for example, you could prevent the ip address conflicts. The dhcp
database is used by the local dhcp server to determine the state of the leases
that the dhcp server has handed out. If you do not
On Thursday 04 September 2008 03:07:50 Charles Spurgeon
wrote:
To which I will add another warning: there is also a
fatal crash bug in SXH3 that is triggered by removing a
route-map.
We've been running SXH3 on our core switches in our larger
PoP (6506/SUP720-3BXL + 6509-E/SUP720-3BXL), with
Hi Guys,
I have some strange behaviour (Or perhaps wrong config) on a CSS11503.
Basically I am just adding a very basic config to it (1 service defined)
for some reason in order for it to work properly I MUST have a group command
defined.
If I don't have the group statement it worked for awhile
Hey folks,
It's been awhile but I have run into a strange set of BGP bugs, and the worst
is on SUP 720 running 12.2(18)SXD7
CSCef01705
http://tools.cisco.com/Support/BugToolKit/search/getBugDetails.do?method=fetchBugDetailsbugId=CSCef01705from=summary
CSCsc36517
33 matches
Mail list logo
