Hi,
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 04:54:56PM -0500, Church, Charles wrote:
Outbound seems a bit trickier. Seems like I need to policy route
the traffic, matching on the source address of the VTC gear. The next hop
is what I'm getting stuck on, since I could be black-holing VTC traffic if
Hi,
I have an 2621XM running c2600-ik9s-mz.123-22a.bin and I noticed
something strange.
Reports were showing utilisation of more than 100%. This can be true in
some cases but for E1 interfaces I always thought that the router
calculates the correct bw depending on the number of channels used. e.g
I the tried changing the ISAKMP profile VRF, et voila, it worked. :-)
I have reloaded the box to make sure it's not just good luck that it
works now. It seems to work fine after a reload, with MPLS on the core
facing interfaces.
Interesting. Are the packets arriving at the box labelled?
FWIW
Hi,
maybe a stupid question: are there any issues known with Rapid-PVSTP,
EoMPLS links, and IOS SXI2?
We just had a nice problem due to a broadcast loop which should have
been broken by STP in the first place, but wasn't - and investigation
afterwards showed an EoMPLS link that just refuses to
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Anthony Gown - Comm-AG Networks P/L wrote:
HI,
Anyone running VPLS on Cisco7600; need some assistance spec'ing the
hardware and identifying the correct IOS to use.
Correct IOS is the SR train, howver for VPLS you need either SIP/SPA
cards
or ES(+) cards.
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 10:49 +, Phil Mayers wrote:
I the tried changing the ISAKMP profile VRF, et voila, it worked. :-)
I have reloaded the box to make sure it's not just good luck that it
works now. It seems to work fine after a reload, with MPLS on the core
facing interfaces.
Greetings all:
Running 8.2(1) on an ASA 5505 and am curious if anyone can tell me what the
+.12 is after the MAC address bound to 172.20.48.37?
Diane-VPN# show dhcpd binding
IP address Hardware addressLease expirationType
172.20.48.36 0019.6983.7339
Hi everyone,
Not sure how many folks have experience with the Nexus 1000v, but
wanted to throw this out to the group to see if anyone has conquered
this before. I am fresh out of ideas, and the TAC rep I am talking
with right now is scratching his head in confusion as well. Version is
4.0(4)SV1.2
Hi,
Was hoping someone could help. It’s a relatively set
up but Im having a few issues. In a nut shell, we have 2 routers connecting to
two provider routers via a switch. Each router pair are running HSRP for
redundancy. Switches are configured to connect devices over a single VLAN.
Anyone know if the N7K handles tcam exhaustion more gracefully than
the 6500? (If you've lived through that experience, you'll know why
I'm asking.)
Docs suggest the N7K is generally smarter about handling tcam than the
6500. Or maybe NX-OS is smarter.
Heres an idea for Cisco: how about porting
On Mar 9, 2010, at 11:01 PM, Tim Durack wrote:
Anyone know if the N7K handles tcam exhaustion more gracefully than
the 6500? (If you've lived through that experience, you'll know why
I'm asking.)
Yes, it does, due to the EARL8. NetFlow works well, uRPF modes are flexible on
a per-interface
Hi Tim, please see inline below:
At 08:01 AM 3/9/2010, Tim Durack clamored:
Anyone know if the N7K handles tcam exhaustion more gracefully than
the 6500? (If you've lived through that experience, you'll know why
I'm asking.)
Yes, it does. I say that because n7k will reject your configuration
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Tim Stevenson tstev...@cisco.com wrote:
Yes, it does. I say that because n7k will reject your configuration if it
won't fit within the constraints of the hw resources. C6K will instead punt
to software to let the RP CPU enforce the ACL (and you can probably
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 23:05 +1030, mark walters wrote:
[...]
The config is pretty vanilla but the one thing that is really strange
is the fact that both switches are learning the virtual MAC and
neither is purged during failover. In previous configs port-security
has caused the MAC addresses
There isn't a .12 appended to the end. It's actually the '01' at the front
that was prepended. I think it has something to do with bootp clients vs.
DHCP clients that causes the '01' to show up. I believe '01' indicates
ethernet, if memory serves me correctly.
Chuck Church
Network Planning
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Peter Rathlev
Sent: March-09-10 7:36 AM
To: Phil Mayers
Cc: cisco-nsp
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IPSec crypto map on MPLS enabled interface?
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 10:49 +,
Hi Tim,
Sorry about that, assumed you were talking about ACL TCAM, but you
are referring to FIB TCAM.
In the scenario you mention, prefixes are installed in the FIB TCAM
on a first come first served basis. Packets not matching a prefix in
the FIB TCAM are punted to the CPU, but such traffic
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 03:26, nasir.sha...@bt.com wrote:
Hi,
I have an 2621XM running c2600-ik9s-mz.123-22a.bin and I noticed
something strange.
Reports were showing utilisation of more than 100%. This can be true in
some cases but for E1 interfaces I always thought that the router
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Tim Stevenson tstev...@cisco.com wrote:
As you probably know, n7k today has a 128K FIB TCAM, inadequate to hold full
routes anyway. Near-term we will have an XL card that holds 900K prefixes.
In that case, you should not run out of FIB TCAM in the case you
The heading of the column is incorrect. It says Hardware address, but
what is really being presented is the DHCP Client Identifier (if sent),
or hardware address.
If you would like this changed, please open a TAC case and let me know
the case number. There is a bug for this, but it was closed,
- Original Message -
From: Tim Stevenson tstev...@cisco.com
To: Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] N7K tcam handling
Hi Tim,
Sorry about that, assumed you were talking about ACL TCAM, but you are
Hi Tony,
The FIB TCAM is already dynamically allocated as of 4.2 (ie, no
static/fixed allocation, blocks of various width entries grow/shrink
as necessary). At the control plane, you can control the max prefixes
for each, which naturally limits the h/w consumption to those numbers as well.
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 11:01:47AM -0500, Tim Durack wrote:
Heres an idea for Cisco: how about porting NX-OS to the 6500? Or
release a new Sup that makes the C6K an N6.5K? I think you would make
a lot of customers happy.
Seconded. Wanna-have!
(Only positive words in here!!)
gert
--
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:10:55AM -0800, Tim Stevenson wrote:
C6K will continue to evolve and they do have a roadmap to a new sup
fabric.
new sup and fabric is nice and dandy, but working OS with modularity,
memory protection and all the 21st century stuff (= NX-OS :) ) would
be much
Bharath,
You didn't send the requested sh contr fia from the attach sessions to the
LCs.
Anyhow, the error messages below indicate your fabric bandwidth mode is
invalid. This should be corrected. Remember, the 12012 can operate in full
and quarter (with only Eng 0 LCs support) bandwidth.
See
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 21:26 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
On cisco.com, I found configuration options for 12.0S on GSRs to
enable/disable forwarding of VTP, STP, CDP individually
(l2protocol stp ...), but that's not available on SXI2.
There seems to be a l2protocol-tunnel proto interface config
Hi folks,
Anybody heard anything as to when SXI4 will be made available? We're
currently debating deploying a dev image due to a bug in SXI3
affecting VSS operation, but if it's coming Real Soon Now, we may just
stay with the devil we know.
Thanks in advance,
--Adam
I hear that it's supposed to be at some point in April. I'm sitting
on a CSM sync bug in SXI3 that is supposed to be fixed in 4.
On 2010-03-09, at 5:13 PM, Adam Korab adam.ko...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
Anybody heard anything as to when SXI4 will be made available? We're
currently
Hello,
I was trying to change the password on catos, and this is how the device
responded. I want to know whether this (Usage: set password) is just a
warning or the password has never been changed!!. Since i use tacacs and the
device is in a remote place, i cant test the POLR right now.
6509
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Sony Scaria sony.sca...@gmail.com wrote:
I was trying to change the password on catos, and this is how the device
responded. I want to know whether this (Usage: set password) is just a
warning or the password has never been changed!!. Since i use tacacs
On 03/06/2010 04:32 AM, Abdel Bidar wrote:
Hi Guys,
I would like to use mrtg to report on our SCE. I have followed Cisco
documentation.
When I run the script rtmcmd.sh I get some errors.
Have someone had the same issues ? I am running on Linux server.
Thanks
Regards
Abdel
Hi Guys,
I am hoping someone may be able to help me out here. I am trying to
assign a block of IP Addresses to my VPN clients (specifically the
subnet 192.168.254.0/24) that is not on use on the internal network. For
some reason the clients are assigned a default gateway even though this
is
Hi folks,
Has anyone ever seen broadcasts leaking from an SVI into a layer 3
interface on a 3560?
We've got a managed Ethernet link between a 3560G-48TS (Auckland,
12.2(50)SE1 IP Services) and a 3750G-24TS (Sydney, 12.2(53)SE IP Services)
configured as a /31 layer 3 interface on both
33 matches
Mail list logo
