Re: [c-nsp] MBGP for Multicast with VRF-Lite
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:43 AM, James Yunkin cisco2323...@yahoo.com wrote: How can one send multicast routes via BGP on a VRF-Lite router? you're screwed, perhaps do ebgp multihop session to something that can speak this AFI ;) -Tk ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] Cisco 2811 and HWIC-1GE-SFP
Hi all, I'm in the process of planning an new edge router, and I'm currently looking at the Cisco 2811.. We need to have 2 x HWIC-1GE-SPF, 2 x WIC-1ADSL, and 2 x WIC-2T in the router. Looking at the datasheet of the 2811, it states that 4 slots are on board, capable of HWIC, WIC, VIC, or VWIC type modules - with an additional bank for an additional network module. The HWIC-1GE-SFP Datasheet (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5854/product_data_shee t0900aecd8016be8d_ps5949_Products_Data_Sheet.html) indicates that only 1 of these modules would be supported on the 2811? Now, I realise that max throughput on the 2811 with two of these line cards will obviously be a huge bottleneck, but we will be nowhere near 100mbit/s throughput on these interfaces. My main goal in using this interface on the 2811 would be to terminate long range fiber on through an SFP interface. Given the low throughput on these WICs (Active/Passive failover), would I be able to install two of them into the 2811, or do I need to look at an alternative router? -- Chris. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] Cisco ME 3400 Switch + dot1.Q Tunneling
Hi Everyone Just wondering if anyone here uses the Cisco ME 3400E Switch, and any comments on performance? Key feature needed would be Layer2 dot1.Q tunneling, and the other option is using the 3560G series. Dominic ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] MBGP for Multicast with VRF-Lite
--- On Mon, 5/2/11, Anton Kapela tkap...@gmail.com wrote: you're screwed, perhaps do ebgp multihop session to something that can speak this AFI ;) How sad. :-) Any idea why this isn't supported? Cisco just doesn't feel like it? Juniper supports it easily. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ME 3400 Switch + dot1.Q Tunneling
Just wondering if anyone here uses the Cisco ME 3400E Switch, and any comments on performance? Key feature needed would be Layer2 dot1.Q tunneling, and the other option is using the 3560G series. We use the ME-3400EG-12CS-M, mostly for the DC power supply and the possibility of using REP. Performance is fine (line rate) - but note that the ME3400E, like the 3560, has fairly small buffers. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] Nexus and Microsoft Unicast NLB
Is anybody else connecting Microsoft NLB unicast cluster servers to a Cisco Nexus switch? Cisco TAC is telling me that the Nexus 5010 running 5.0(3)N1(1b) won't support NLB unicast mode, and I should just move to NLB Multicast or stick the NLB servers in their own VLAN. P1-N5K-1(config)# mac address-table static 02cf.c0b8.d46c vlan 100 interface ethernet 100/1/44 ethernet 101/1/44 ERROR: invalid number of interfaces specified -- deny ip any any (4393649193 matches) ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Nexus and Microsoft Unicast NLB
I have NLB Unicast clusters running on FEXs hanging off of Nexus 5548s. In unicast mode, there's no need to define static mac entries since traffic will be flooded. I simply stick the clusters in dedicated VLANs. -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Deny IP Any Any Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 2:54 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Nexus and Microsoft Unicast NLB Is anybody else connecting Microsoft NLB unicast cluster servers to a Cisco Nexus switch? Cisco TAC is telling me that the Nexus 5010 running 5.0(3)N1(1b) won't support NLB unicast mode, and I should just move to NLB Multicast or stick the NLB servers in their own VLAN. P1-N5K-1(config)# mac address-table static 02cf.c0b8.d46c vlan 100 interface ethernet 100/1/44 ethernet 101/1/44 ERROR: invalid number of interfaces specified -- deny ip any any (4393649193 matches) ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] frame relay connect
hi all i have the below topology R1 S0/1 -- R3 S1/2 R3 1/3 -- R2 S0/1 R3 will act a frame relay switch , the configuration is as below R1: interface Serial0/1 ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0 encapsulation frame-relay frame-relay map ip 192.168.1.2 132 no frame-relay inverse-arp R1#sh frame-relay map Serial0/1 (up): ip 192.168.1.2 dlci 132(0x84,0x2040), static, broadcast, CISCO, status defined, active R1#sh frame-relay pvc PVC Statistics for interface Serial0/1 (Frame Relay DTE) Active Inactive Deleted Static Local 1000 Switched 0000 Unused 0000 DLCI = 132, DLCI USAGE = LOCAL, PVC STATUS = ACTIVE, INTERFACE = Serial0/1 input pkts 0 output pkts 5in bytes 0 out bytes 520dropped pkts 0 in pkts dropped 0 out pkts dropped 0out bytes dropped 0 in FECN pkts 0 in BECN pkts 0 out FECN pkts 0 out BECN pkts 0 in DE pkts 0 out DE pkts 0 out bcast pkts 0 out bcast bytes 0 5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec pvc create time 00:02:51, last time pvc status changed 00:02:51 R2: interface Serial0/1 ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0 encapsulation frame-relay no ip route-cache clock rate 200 frame-relay map ip 192.168.1.1 231 no frame-relay inverse-arp Serial0/1 (up): ip 192.168.1.1 dlci 231(0xE7,0x3870), static, broadcast, CISCO, status defined, active R2#sh frame-relay pvc PVC Statistics for interface Serial0/0 (Frame Relay DTE) Active Inactive Deleted Static Local 1000 Switched 0000 Unused 4000 DLCI = 201, DLCI USAGE = UNUSED, PVC STATUS = ACTIVE, INTERFACE = Serial0/0 input pkts 0 output pkts 0in bytes 0 out bytes 0 dropped pkts 0 in pkts dropped 0 out pkts dropped 0out bytes dropped 0 in FECN pkts 0 in BECN pkts 0 out FECN pkts 0 out BECN pkts 0 in DE pkts 0 out DE pkts 0 out bcast pkts 0 out bcast bytes 0 5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec pvc create time 01:15:56, last time pvc status changed 01:15:56 R3: interface Serial1/2 no ip address encapsulation frame-relay clock rate 64000 frame-relay intf-type dce ! interface Serial1/3 no ip address encapsulation frame-relay clock rate 64000 frame-relay intf-type dce R3#show run | inc connect connect MSSK Serial1/2 132 Serial1/3 231 R3#sh connection all ID Name Segment 1Segment 2 State 3MSSK Se1/2 132Se1/3 231UP now everything is up and running but there is no ping between the ends ? Thanks Best Regards, ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] SXJ - The good, the bad, the ugly?
SXJ appears to have been in the wild for about month. Has anyone been playing with it? Seen any nasty bugs yet? ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ME 3400 Switch + dot1.Q Tunneling
I'd also be interested in feedback on anyone with ME-3400/3600/3800 devices deployed, specifically wrt REP implementations. -- Eric Cables On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:18 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: Just wondering if anyone here uses the Cisco ME 3400E Switch, and any comments on performance? Key feature needed would be Layer2 dot1.Q tunneling, and the other option is using the 3560G series. We use the ME-3400EG-12CS-M, mostly for the DC power supply and the possibility of using REP. Performance is fine (line rate) - but note that the ME3400E, like the 3560, has fairly small buffers. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] NX-OS 5.1 proxy l3
What does an increased number of layer-3 forwarders (16 to 128) do for me in NX-OS 5.1? -- Tim: ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] NX-OS 5.1 proxy l3
It gives you more proxy L3 forwarding capacity in a mixed module chassis, ie your M1 modules doing routing on behalf of your F1 modules. Tim At 06:52 PM 5/2/2011, Tim Durack mused: What does an increased number of layer-3 forwarders (16 to 128) do for me in NX-OS 5.1? -- Tim: ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsphttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ Tim Stevenson, tstev...@cisco.com Routing Switching CCIE #5561 Distinguished Technical Marketing Engineer, Cisco Nexus 7000 Cisco - http://www.cisco.com IP Phone: 408-526-6759 The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential* and are intended for the specified recipients only. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] NX-OS 5.1 proxy l3
Okay, so 1 proxy forwarder = 1 SVI? I guess I'm trying to figure out how many SVIs I can proxy-route with an F1/M1 mix. I can't find any numbers anywhere. On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Tim Stevenson tstev...@cisco.com wrote: It gives you more proxy L3 forwarding capacity in a mixed module chassis, ie your M1 modules doing routing on behalf of your F1 modules. Tim At 06:52 PM 5/2/2011, Tim Durack mused: What does an increased number of layer-3 forwarders (16 to 128) do for me in NX-OS 5.1? -- Tim: ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsphttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ Tim Stevenson, tstev...@cisco.com Routing Switching CCIE #5561 Distinguished Technical Marketing Engineer, Cisco Nexus 7000 Cisco - http://www.cisco.com IP Phone: 408-526-6759 The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential* and are intended for the specified recipients only. -- Tim: ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] NX-OS 5.1 proxy l3
If you have an M1/F1 mixed chassis, any given F1 card can use any and all M1 cards for L3 switching. Cheers, Brad Hedlund http://bradhedlund.com On May 2, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote: What does an increased number of layer-3 forwarders (16 to 128) do for me in NX-OS 5.1? -- Tim: ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] NX-OS 5.1 proxy l3
The number of SVIs is not a factor (or no more so than for any system) - the question is how much bandwidth/thruput do you need for inter-vlan routing for those SVIs. Each M1 module you add to the system adds up to 80G of proxy L3 (assuming 10G M1 cards, and assuming you allow all M1 ports to participate). Tim At 08:08 PM 5/2/2011, Tim Durack mused: Okay, so 1 proxy forwarder = 1 SVI? I guess I'm trying to figure out how many SVIs I can proxy-route with an F1/M1 mix. I can't find any numbers anywhere. On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Tim Stevenson tstev...@cisco.com wrote: It gives you more proxy L3 forwarding capacity in a mixed module chassis, ie your M1 modules doing routing on behalf of your F1 modules. Tim At 06:52 PM 5/2/2011, Tim Durack mused: What does an increased number of layer-3 forwarders (16 to 128) do for me in NX-OS 5.1? -- Tim: ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsphttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsphttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ Tim Stevenson, tstev...@cisco.com Routing Switching CCIE #5561 Distinguished Technical Marketing Engineer, Cisco Nexus 7000 Cisco - http://www.cisco.comhttp://www.cisco.com IP Phone: 408-526-6759 The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential* and are intended for the specified recipients only. -- Tim: Tim Stevenson, tstev...@cisco.com Routing Switching CCIE #5561 Distinguished Technical Marketing Engineer, Cisco Nexus 7000 Cisco - http://www.cisco.com IP Phone: 408-526-6759 The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential* and are intended for the specified recipients only. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
