On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Charles Sprickman sp...@bway.net wrote:
On Feb 2, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On 2/Feb/15 18:46, Warren Jackson wrote:
Sure, no problem!
1) Lack of Cisco support. You will find yourself behind the eight-ball
dealing with the
On 02/02/2015 16:46, Warren Jackson wrote:
1) Lack of Cisco support. You will find yourself behind the eight-ball
dealing with the TAC if you have these in your chassis. Sounds like a
small deal, but I for one don't have the time to deal with it.
You won't run into problems like this unless
With this new site, I only planed on only bringing up the isis adjacency as
it is a new site and no OSPF is required (because I don't need to migrate
anything off). However the ISIS adjacency won't come up because it doesn't
have an LDP session up yet. And the LDP session wont come up without
Hey
I've been rolling out new routers to various sites throughout our
organisation. And in doing so, I've been applying the mpls ldp sync
command under the router isis subsection.
This has been fine up until now. Because all other sites are running OSPF
and ISIS together (as we are in the process
Apparently didn't send the correct link (release notes will take you here).
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switches/28724-161.html
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:51 AM, George Peek gp...@ucsc.edu wrote:
They are independent of each other and not required for
Den 02.02.2015 17:46, skrev Warren Jackson:
Sure, no problem!
1) Lack of Cisco support. You will find yourself behind the eight-ball
dealing with the TAC if you have these in your chassis. Sounds like a
small deal, but I for one don't have the time to deal with it.
Cisco do actually have
Are you doing ldp sourced from loopback or something?
-Blake
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Troy Boutso sensible...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey
I've been rolling out new routers to various sites throughout our
organisation. And in doing so, I've been applying the mpls ldp sync
command under the
Without going too deep right now as I am outside I think mpls ldp igp sync
holddown sec should fix the problem .
On Monday, February 2, 2015, Troy Boutso sensible...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey
I've been rolling out new routers to various sites throughout our
organisation. And in doing so, I've
On 02/02/2015 12:02, Warren Jackson wrote:
Highly recommend you do not use this in production.
Disagree, strongly.
Vendor transceivers are racket, a scam, hugely inflated and price, and
the practice of transceiver locking is enormously anti-competitive, not
to mention operationally tedious.
Yes it was all on one switch to simulate an environment where a stack of
3750s services multiple floors in a building for streaming a TV.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Warren Jackson wrjack1...@gmail.com wrote:
And this is all on one switch?
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:12 PM Adam Vitkovsky
On 2/Feb/15 13:23, Harry Hambi - Atos wrote:
Hi all ,
I have a non-cisco SFP can someone remind me of the command to run in order to
use the SFP in a cisco chassis. Is the command a hidden command?, do you need
to run in interface config mode?, will the switch require a reboot?. Thanks in
Thanks
Rgds
Harry
Harry Hambi BEng(Hons) MIET Rsgb
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Warren
Jackson
Sent: 02 February 2015 12:03
To: Mark Tinka; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Non Cisco SFP
Highly recommend
On 2/Feb/15 14:02, Warren Jackson wrote:
Highly recommend you do not use this in production.
Because?
We do, no issues.
Mark.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
On 02/02/2015 12:35, Phil Mayers wrote:
hugely inflated and price
s/and/in/
Sigh ;o)
___
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/
And this is all on one switch?
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:12 PM Adam Vitkovsky avitkov...@gammatelecom.com
wrote:
Well there are actually two versions of the cmd.
ip igmp static-group
- Is used widely in contribution video setups where there's no PIM/IGMP
between the two providers.
Or in
Hi all ,
I have a non-cisco SFP can someone remind me of the command to run in order to
use the SFP in a cisco chassis. Is the command a hidden command?, do you need
to run in interface config mode?, will the switch require a reboot?. Thanks in
advance
Rgds
Harry
Harry Hambi BEng(Hons)
And why is that?
We have many non-cisco optics deployed without trouble.
I would avoid the cheapest-of-the-cheap optics, as those have been rumored to
have trouble, slow i2c responses, or other issues that the software is poorly
coded to handle.
We’ve done this with SFP, XFP, SFP+ and CFP
Highly recommend you do not use this in production.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 6:50 AM Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On 2/Feb/15 13:23, Harry Hambi - Atos wrote:
Hi all ,
I have a non-cisco SFP can someone remind me of the command to run in
order to use the SFP in a cisco chassis. Is
Hi Everyone,
If I want to block certain prefixes from an upstream, and accept the rest and
then tag the accepted prefixes, which is the correct method..I *thought* the
first one was correct, but it doesnt do what I expected...i.e. the ACL gets a
hit on deny 10.0.0.0/24, but it is still
I am glad to see this thread, we are on the cusp of making the plunge into
aftermarket optics and have been looking for anything to tip the scale one way
or the other. I had a chat with a Gartner fellow a couple of weeks ago and the
outcome of that call did not tip the scales for me. This
Hi,
if you want to deny the prefix you have to use deny ;)
The untested version of your route-map should do the expected, but you
don't need the continue 20 as the continue doesn't work with a deny.
Karsten
Am 03.02.2015 06:21, schrieb CiscoNSP List:
Hi Everyone,
If I want to block certain
route-map UPSTREAM_A_IN permit 10
match ip address 98
I would strongly suggest to use prefix-lists instead of access-lists, they are
made on purpose to match prefixes, are a lot easier to use and provide
much more flexibility.
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:29:41PM +, Rick Martin wrote:
I am glad to see this thread, we are on the cusp of making the plunge into
aftermarket optics
Whatever aftermarket optics are - I would not go and by *used* optics,
because that's about the only thing in modern hardware that
On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:29:41PM +, Rick Martin wrote:
I am glad to see this thread, we are on the cusp of making the plunge into
aftermarket optics
Whatever aftermarket optics are - I would not go and by
This is exactly the opposite of my experience. The Cisco branded
optics are generally the problem supporting dom properly, or have
interoperability issues in their own gear, while the generics + a
programmer are generally more reliable, far cheaper, and far more
usable across the different
Agreed. We have all sorts of third party brand SFPs around here. 1G and
10G. You can buy both DOM capable or not. We've not had any problems out
of them.
Actually, this morning we swapped out an optic that died over night. It
was a Cisco branded one. :)
-Christopher
On 2/2/15, 12:56 PM, Jared
They are independent of each other and not required for the upgrade to 15.x
(in most cases just s72033-advipservicesk9-mz.151-2.SY4a.bin will do). I
wouldn't be too surprised if these are the latest versions you found. Now
that being said, I don't know what you are currently running so it may be a
I was offering something for the super-geeks :)
at $dayjob we purchase from champion one, but have also tested other optics
from OSI hardware and others.
I’ve even heard of good luck from fiberstore.com as well, which is super-cheap.
- Jared
On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Matthew Crocker
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Warren Jackson wrote:
Sure, no problem!
2) Cost. If you buy through a Cisco gold provider then you are going to
get a good price on the optics, enough to where the difference pays off in
support, as these can been wrapped in through your smartnet converage. If
you have
You could buy
http://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and save the
rPi headaches. I haven’t used this but it does look interesting.
Or, you could just go here: http://approvedoptics.com/ Cisco, Juniper every
SFP, XFP, SFP+ i’ve ordered has worked 100% and they
Sure, no problem!
1) Lack of Cisco support. You will find yourself behind the eight-ball
dealing with the TAC if you have these in your chassis. Sounds like a
small deal, but I for one don't have the time to deal with it.
2) Cost. If you buy through a Cisco gold provider then you are going
As previously mentioned , hidden IOS command service
unsupported-transceiver...it is global, not interface level... and for IOS XR
I use, interface level, transceiver permit pid all
I use non-cisco xcvrs all over the place in my network, they seem fine.
Also, ASR901 takes the legacy hidden
On Feb 2, 2015, at 7:29 AM, Rick Martin rick.mar...@arkansas.gov wrote:
We are also looking at aftermarket DAC or Twinax cables, what has been your
experience with those in a Cisco environment? We have had a couple dozen Dell
DAC's connecting Dell servers to HP 5900's with good success but
On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Warren Jackson wrjack1...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, no problem!
1) Lack of Cisco support. You will find yourself behind the eight-ball
dealing with the TAC if you have these in your chassis. Sounds like a small
deal, but I for one don't have the time to
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 04:46:30PM +, Warren Jackson wrote:
1) Lack of Cisco support. You will find yourself behind the eight-ball
dealing with the TAC if you have these in your chassis. Sounds like a
small deal, but I for one don't have the time to deal with it.
It will only be a
On 2/Feb/15 18:46, Warren Jackson wrote:
Sure, no problem!
1) Lack of Cisco support. You will find yourself behind the eight-ball
dealing with the TAC if you have these in your chassis. Sounds like a
small deal, but I for one don't have the time to deal with it.
I've found this not to be
On 2/Feb/15 19:24, Aaron wrote:
As previously mentioned , hidden IOS command service unsupported-transceiver...it is
global, not interface level... and for IOS XR I use, interface level, transceiver permit pid
all
I have service unsupported-transceiver in IOS XR and it works with no
On Feb 2, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On 2/Feb/15 18:46, Warren Jackson wrote:
Sure, no problem!
1) Lack of Cisco support. You will find yourself behind the eight-ball
dealing with the TAC if you have these in your chassis. Sounds like a
small deal, but I
38 matches
Mail list logo
