On Sunday 08 November 2009 08:10:05 pm Mikael Abrahamsson
wrote:
In order to detect loopbacks going away and using this to
invalidate/remove next-hops quickly, you can't aggregate
anyway.
My point exactly - the use of Route Leaking without the ATT
bit nullifies the need for a multi-level
hey all
i have Cisco 7606 connected to WiMAX ASN GW via port channel
now i have the following issue
router#sh int po10 | inc overrun
0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 8032 overrun, 0 ignored
router#sh int po10 | inc ove
router#sh int po20 | inc overrun
0 input errors, 0
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:55:43AM +0100, Gergely Antal wrote:
Did you look at the c2350 also?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10116/index.html
The data sheet sounds very nice indeed.
What I can't see from there is:
- does it support flow-control?
- how big and how flexible are
Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:55:43AM +0100, Gergely Antal wrote:
Did you look at the c2350 also?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10116/index.html
The data sheet sounds very nice indeed.
What I can't see from there is:
- does it support flow-control?
sh
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:30:07AM +0100, Gergely Antal wrote:
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:55:43AM +0100, Gergely Antal wrote:
Did you look at the c2350 also?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10116/index.html
The data sheet sounds very nice indeed.
What I can't see from
Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:30:07AM +0100, Gergely Antal wrote:
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:55:43AM +0100, Gergely Antal wrote:
Did you look at the c2350 also?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10116/index.html
The data sheet sounds very nice indeed.
What I
Hi All,
im looking at using a 7600 to terminate a 10GE uplink for IP transit to my
upstream. no BGP full table yet, just a default route.
I will be using a 6704 to connect the 7600 my core, of course also using
10GE links.
The question i have is regarding which interface to use to connect to
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 11:56:18AM +0100, vince anton wrote:
im looking at using a 7600 to terminate a 10GE uplink for IP transit to my
upstream. no BGP full table yet, just a default route.
I will be using a 6704 to connect the 7600 my core, of course also using
10GE links.
We're
Hello,
I would like to have precisions on default queuing on 7200 Routers.
Here is my test topology:
PC -100Mbps-- Switch --100Mbps--- Router --10Mbps--
Switch --100Mbps- LAN
There is no QOS configured on equipments.
There is a softphone on the PC
Hi,
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Florent PARATTE (G)
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 6:55 AM
In the show interface e2/0 command output, the queuing strategy is
FIFO.
In the show queue
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Gergely Antal sk...@skoal.name wrote:
Did you look at the c2350 also?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10116/index.html
Very interesting, indeed. Would be nice to see a POE version as well (to
compete with the Force10 S50V), but as it seems to be
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:05:34 -0500, you wrote:
[Cat 2350G] Doesn't appear to be in the pricing tool yet, though?
Every order goes on NPH and needs to go through the BU for approval.
Pricing is 'known, but not public'.
-A
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
Thank you for your answer.
Sorry, I forgot saying what I tried to do:
I know how to configure QoS settings but before applying it I would like to
have congestion, so RTP packet loss to see before/after results. But my
problem is here. I'm not able to have RTP packet loss, even with the
topology
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
I'm not questioning your decision, I'm just stating it for the archives
and for everyone else who has to make this same decision at some point
in the future: If you have to ask, just don't do it. I see way too many
people trying to deploy areas with 10 router
Any reason why you wouldn't go for fcoe on nexus 5k? :)
It does look like that is what the box is really for. To answer the
question, it all depends on what SAN goes in. A lot of the newer stuff
with better value is iSCSI only and eschews FC in any form.
Maybe I better question to ask is how
I realize this is cisco-nsp, but does anyone have any opinions on the
Force
10 S-series for top-of-rack? Especially for iSCSI SAN. I've long been
frustrated with Cisco's lack of a cost-effective 48 ports of gigE with
a
10ge uplink switch. I don't really *need* a $12,000 layer 3 switch (or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Security Advisory: Transport Layer Security Renegotiation
Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20091109-tls
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20091109-tls.shtml
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2009 November 9 1600 UTC (GMT
Brian Landers wrote:
I realize this is cisco-nsp, but does anyone have any opinions on the Force
10 S-series for top-of-rack? Especially for iSCSI SAN. I've long been
frustrated with Cisco's lack of a cost-effective 48 ports of gigE with a
10ge uplink switch. I don't really *need* a $12,000
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
In order to detect loopbacks going away and using this to
invalidate/remove next-hops quickly, you can't aggregate anyway.
Sorry, I have yet to hear someone describe an ISP network (designed as
per ISP essentials, carry loopbacks in IGP and everything else in BGP),
I too can vouch for the 5K's not being ready for prime time.
Here is a short list of the advanced features we are trying to use-
-Disable the HTTP/HTTPS server onboard
-NTP Authentication
-ACL's for SNMP access
-VTY ACL's
-VTP passthrough - VTP packets WILL NOT pass through this switch.
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 19:09 +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote:
What exactly is Fa0 and where would I insert a cable into this port?
It doesn't seem to exist physically on the front of the module.
Hmm... it seems that the bladecenter management interface actually
carries this traffic, i.e. the switch
Folks.
I read these papers long time ago, so I do not remember anymore exactly what
this options labels (A, B, AB,...) definition means.
What I can tell you guys is that I operate a network which has a Inter-AS
peering were we exchange IPv4 VPNv4 prefixes and traffic while maintaining
QoS
Hello all,
I am looking to learn of any good or bad deployment experience with the new
Cisco CRS-1 FP-40 module. Besides the limitations outlined in cisco's datasheet
(less pps and QoS queues than MSC-40), is there any other gotcha's that you
have found in testing or deployment?
Thank you
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Aaron dudep...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah. ISSU isn't were it should be. Some SMU's require a reload depending on
what componets are touched.
Out of the last 20 SMU's for 3.6.2 only 11 were non traffic impacting. (for us)
Hi Jimmi - thanks for sharing - some comments / questions inline below
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:07 AM, jimmi ji...@netpoint.com.br wrote:
Folks.
I read these papers long time ago, so I do not remember anymore exactly
what
this options labels (A, B, AB,...) definition means.
Quick recap
Peter,
I'm not familiar with the IBM, but when I deploy the 3x20 for the HP
chassis, I just disable to the Fa0 port to cut it off from the HP Onboard
Administrator, and then proceed to configure it as a 'regular' switch with a
management VLAN that comes in on the regular uplinks to the
Hi All,
Is it bad to change the hold-queue from it's default of 40 on the Cisco
7301?
I came across this article which isn't specific to the 7301, but in the
article they recommended changing the hold-queue on a 1G interface to
hold-queue 1024 out.
http://fasterdata.es.net/cisco.html
Enable protected mode on the AMM, then 'platform chassis-management
protected-mode' on your switch. The switch will require a reload and sever
the fastethernet management ports automatically.
We do this all the time here. :) Note that this seriously breaks any
existing configuration in some
What is the difference between the three CRS L3+ forwarding engines? The
datasheets look like straight copy-paste besides the weight and
power-ratings. The only downside to FP40 that I have found so far relates
to the inability to use SIP-800 (and as a results, older SPAs). Can anyone
point me
On Nov 9, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Eric Girard wrote:
Peter,
I'm not familiar with the IBM, but when I deploy the 3x20 for the
HP chassis, I just disable to the Fa0 port to cut it off from the HP
Onboard Administrator, and then proceed to configure it as a
'regular' switch with a management
Hi
Is flow-control enabled on the other end?
Seems like you are connecting to a device that doesn't support
flow-control.
regards
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 11:22 +0200, Mohammad Khalil wrote:
hey all
i have Cisco 7606 connected to WiMAX ASN GW via port channel
now i have the following
I have an old PM25 that obviously doesn't support telnet that I use for
serial console access, so I thought of using the following quick and
dirty way of giving it some external transport security via SSH to a
cisco and autocommanding to telnet:
username bettysue noescape nohangup user-maxlinks 1
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 09:51:40AM -0800, Jared Gillis wrote:
While I agree with these statements, our issue is not tree
recalculation/convergence. Our issue and driving need for IS-IS
multiarea is the fact that we have 3750ME's which can only hold ~2k
routes in the TCAM in our IS-IS domain,
Hi.
What is the difference between the three CRS L3+ forwarding engines? The
datasheets look like straight copy-paste besides the weight and
power-ratings.
That's true for MSC and MSC-B. They are virtually the same, but the
B-version draws less power (and requires a newer XR-version).
The
34 matches
Mail list logo
