Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
Lobo
Sent: 30 January 2015 02:00
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Enabling multicast routing on 3750G platform
Problem solved!
You guys were right about VLC and its TTL. Turns out
Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
Lobo
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 9:00 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Enabling multicast routing on 3750G platform
Problem solved!
You guys were right about VLC and its TTL
interface list:
Loopback0, Forward/Sparse, 02:45:36/00:02:27
Switch#
Thanks again for the tips everyone!
Jose
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Adam Vitkovsky avitkov...@gammatelecom.com
wrote:
Hi Lobo,
Ok so the SW is indeed a DR on port GigabitEthernet1/0/1 and it's
obviously receiving
Hi everyone. I've been trying to get multicast routing to work on a single
3750G switch between two vlans but for the life of me it just doesn't
work. When the host and receiver are on a single vlan the streaming works
but then you don't even need multicast routing enabled for it to work.
When I
for the stream TTL.
On 28.01.2015 19:37, Lobo wrote:
Hi everyone. I've been trying to get multicast routing to work on a
single
3750G switch between two vlans but for the life of me it just doesn't
work. When the host and receiver are on a single vlan the streaming works
The server
-routing distributed
!
!
ip pim rp-address 3.3.3.3
!
Jose
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Lobo loboti...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the replies. I'll post a show mroute and tweak the VLC
parameters once I get access to the device tonight. BTW, all of this
testing is just on a single switch so
Hi everyone. I'm trying to understand vpls with a hub spoke topology
a little better but I'm having a hard time grasping which site(s) need
to have the no split-horizon configuration added to them. Not sure if
this is even possible with the autodiscovery option vs using manual.
So right
Yes we've experienced that too. Swapping out the SFP doesn't fix it
either and it requires a reboot to get the copper to work again on the
same port.
Jose
On 9/5/2014 7:08 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 04/09/2014 19:41, Aaron wrote:
after typing that global command, just shut/no shut the port
Similar issues here. The only 1000BaseT SFPs that we've gotten to work
are the Cisco branded ones. Some of the other brands/manufacturers
we've used have given mixed results. In one instance we had plugged in
a 10/100/1000 SFP and tried connecting it to a Cisco 3750 FE port. The
FE port on
but
the cooling issue has us concerned as well. There appears to only be
one version of the fan module for the 7604 so would that mean that you
would need a 7606 as a minimum to provide enough cooling???
Jose
On 3/20/2014 4:41 PM, Pete Templin wrote:
On 3/20/2014 1:23 PM, Lobo wrote:
xxx
the case.
Jose
On 3/21/2014 9:42 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 21/03/14 12:15, Lobo wrote:
Even though the cards are not completely compatible for totals # of
routes (3C vs 3CXL) the system should default to the lowest card but I
would think that it would still power up the card and let it function
...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lobo
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 7:50 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] X6708-10G-3C compatible with 7604 chassis?
Agreed. But even after a reboot, the chassis is still not allowing this
6708 card to come up because it complains about insufficient
are
labeled VARIABLE and FULL. The switch should be put in the
VARIABLE position.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Lobo loboti...@gmail.com
mailto:loboti...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. But even after a reboot, the chassis is still not
allowing this 6708 card to come up because
you need for the X6708-10G-3CXL).
Might be worth trying a newer hardware revision of the FAN-MOD-4HS.
Chris
Am 21.03.14 11:31, schrieb Lobo:
Wow I never knew about that switch. Ours had the variable and full
options and we moved it over to full. The fan is definitely running
at the higher speeds
Hey everyone. Looking for some assistance or if anyone has had any
experience with the WS-X6708-10G-3C line card. We're trying to use this
particular card in our 7604 chassis which has the RSP720-3CXL-10GE
processor and 2700W DC power supply. However, we get errors and the
card does not get
and show environment output?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Lobo loboti...@gmail.com
mailto:loboti...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey everyone. Looking for some assistance or if anyone has had
any experience with the WS-X6708-10G-3C line card. We're trying
to use this particular card
One other thing I noticed from your email and something that we've
experienced in the past as well. I think it may also be related to
hitting the TCAM limit but check to see if you have this command enabled:
mls rate-limit unicast cef receive 1 255
According to Cisco, that command will
Same here. We use /128s and configure the loopback interface to be part
of the ospf process and given area.
Jose
On 11/21/2013 5:10 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 21/11/13 08:38, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Hi Everyone,
What is recommended practice when configuring OSPFv3/IPv6
Loopbacks? Do you
Hi everyone. I'm in the process of configuring some IP SLA based
commands and I notice that our core/P routers don't support it properly
because of the current (old) code they're running: 12.2(18)SFX17
I've loaded up 12.2(33)SRE8 in our lab routers but also see that there's
15.0S and 15.1S
Here is what we sort of followed:
* Get your IPv6 block from your RIR; typically a /32 but we were able
to negotiate a /28
* Come up with a good IPv6 address plan; spend some good time on this
* Enable IPv6 connectivity to your upstream and public peering
connections along with BGP
*
Hi everyone. Been having a hard time trying to get a copper SFP to work
on our ME-3600X-24TS-Ms. According to Cisco documentation, the GLC-T
SFP is supposed to be supported on one of the fiber ports. However every
Cisco SFP we've tried always spits back an error message:
Switch#
*Dec 6
to the interface config?
Best regards,
Andras
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Lobo loboti...@gmail.com
mailto:loboti...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone. Been having a hard time trying to get a copper SFP
to work on our ME-3600X-24TS-Ms. According to Cisco
documentation, the GLC-T SFP
it work?
Andras
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Lobo loboti...@gmail.com
mailto:loboti...@gmail.com wrote:
Normally I would agree with this command but it's not supported.
The only speed command is nonegotiate and it doesn't make a
difference when plugging the SFP in.
Jose
November 2012 09:47, Lobo loboti...@gmail.com
mailto:loboti...@gmail.com wrote:
I was under the impression that the rewrite ingress tag pop 1
symmetric was required in order for the xconnect to work?
Removing it seems to break the xconnect as traffic no longer goes
across
Hi everyone. I was hoping I could get some help with an EoMPLS config
I'm working on between an ME3600X and an ME6524 and being able to
preserve the CoS field values.
The xconnect pseudowire it actually up and able to pass traffic so
that's not a problem. The issue is that any CoS values I
On 11/6/2012 3:14 PM, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote:
Hi,
On 7 November 2012 08:04, Lobo loboti...@gmail.com
mailto:loboti...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone. I was hoping I could get some help with an EoMPLS
config I'm working on between an ME3600X and an ME6524 and being
able to preserve
Apologies if this is a little long but looking for some friendly advice
from you experts on rolling out IPv6 on our network.
Our network follows a traditional model where it's
edgedistributioncore-gwy for our internet customers. The
entire distribution, core and gwy routers have
Thanks for the info!
Jose
On 10/1/2011 6:07 PM, Tóth András wrote:
Hi Jose,
The 57000 is shared between IPv4 and IPv6.
Best regards,
Andras
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Loboloboti...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey everyone. We're looking at the 4948E as a possible replacement for our
aging
Hi everyone.
We're looking at some kind of replacement for our 3550-12Ts which are
currently being used as the routers at our edges. Since these are
layer 3 switches, there are also some vlans that transit through the
device but realistically they don't have to. It's just how I inherited
Can it handle 100-120Mbps of traffic though? I thought this platform
was limited to something well below that?
Jose
On 3/10/2011 10:57 AM, Andrew Wentzell wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Loboloboti...@gmail.com wrote:
Considering we need some new, cheap router/layer3 switch that
Thanks for the info Mark. We'll take this into consideration as well.
Jose
On 3/10/2011 9:01 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:30:27 pm Lobo wrote:
I asked Cisco and they recommended the ME3600X but this
product looks too new and full IPv6 support is not even
ready yet
Anyone?
Jose
On 3/4/2011 3:52 PM, Lobo wrote:
Hey everyone. I've been trying to replicate the per-port per vlan
policing that we do on our C3750s on an ME-6524 we have in our lab but
I'm coming across a rejection by the router/switch whenever I attempt
to apply the policy-map to the SVI
Hey everyone. I've been trying to replicate the per-port per vlan
policing that we do on our C3750s on an ME-6524 we have in our lab but
I'm coming across a rejection by the router/switch whenever I attempt to
apply the policy-map to the SVI.
This is the configuration I'm using:
mac
On 11/23/2010 5:13 PM, Eric Oosting wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Lobo loboti...@gmail.com
mailto:loboti...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/23/2010 6:14 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Can't think of why this would be an issue.
The longest distance we have today between two
On 11/23/2010 6:14 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Can't think of why this would be an issue.
The longest distance we have today between two iBGP
neighbors is 160ms (and soon, the farthest we'll have will
be about 230ms), and that has no problems at all.
I'd suspect MTU issues here.
Cheers,
Mark.
Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lobo
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 7:27 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] BGP neighbor not establishing session
I've tried searching around for this problem but haven't
Well, we upgraded from 7206VXR NPEG1s to 7301 but the software went from
12.3(26) to 12.2(33)SRE1 as well.
The interfaces on both sides are all set to 9216 mtu but the path
between them is a lot less than that. Another thing that a colleague of
mine pointed out was that the distance between
I've tried searching around for this problem but haven't found much info.
We upgraded some 7301 routers the other night and there are a couple of
neighbors which have not been able to re-establish themselves.
Debugging from one of the routers shows this:
Nov 21 21:06:51.902 EST: BGP:
Anyone?
Jose
On 10/8/2010 2:13 PM, Lobo wrote:
Hey everyone. I've been trying to find some documentation on CCO
about the ME6524 and whether it has any total number of policer
limitations like other platforms such as the 3750 (64/port or 256
total) and haven't found anything relevant
We've been running 12.2(33)SRE1 since July on our gateway routers and
haven't come across anything unusual. These routers are our upstream
transit connections running BGP/OSPF/LDP with dozens of eBGP sessions.
Jose
On 10/8/2010 12:43 PM, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
Is anyone running SRE2 (or 1)
Hey everyone. I've been trying to find some documentation on CCO
about the ME6524 and whether it has any total number of policer
limitations like other platforms such as the 3750 (64/port or 256 total)
and haven't found anything relevant.
At a high level, if I wanted to start applying a
Thanks for the tip. I'm having the vendor issue the command to verify
for us.
Our main concern is just making sure that we'll have the 1million IPv4
routes and 256K netflow capabilities for this box.
Thanks!
Jose
On 6/24/2010 5:56 AM, Frédéric LOUI wrote:
In addition you can check this
We're in the process of purchasing some RSP720-3CXL-10GEs for a 7604 and
one vendor has told us that they have some RSP720-3C-10GE cards plus
PFC3CXL daughter cards which they claim that when combined equates to a
regular RSP720-3CXL-10GE. Is this true? I mean from a technical stand
point it
Email: dwbiel...@liberty.edu
Phone: 434-592-7987
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lobo
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:45 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Egress QoS on FE links
.
Jose
On 12/16/2009 2:55 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 08:45 -0500, Lobo wrote:
[...]
There are times when the link is only capable of hitting say 80Mbps
(we're a wireless isp) or less.
Since we have to use a FE port for this type of connection, do the
switches believe
We're doing some Catalyst testing to roll out QoS on our Ethernet
network and have come up against a hurdle. On most of our backbone
links in a MAN, the actual bandwidth between one C/O to another C/O is
not always 100Mbps. There are times when the link is only capable of
hitting say 80Mbps
.
Basically the way we broke down our QoS was:
Bronze - best effort
Silver - premium data for customers
Gold - customer voip / video
I guess you could call our gold queue the real time queue.
--
Will Collier-Byrd
On Nov 26, 2009, at 9:08 AM, Lobo loboti...@gmail.com wrote:
We're in the early stages
We're trying to do a custom bgp setup for one of our customers but I'm
not sure if it's even possible with IOS. Our network has its primary
upstream connection in a different city from where this customer will
connect. However each city has its own local internet connection as
well for
something like that as well since we tag all of our local internet
connections with specific communities that are unique per market.
Jose
Zoe O'Connell wrote:
Lobo wrote:
We're trying to do a custom bgp setup for one of our customers but I'm
not sure if it's even possible with IOS. Our
Thanks for the explanation Brad. Makes sense to me now.
Jose
Brad Henshaw wrote:
Lobo wrote:
I setup a traffic generator to send 95Mbps of traffic with DSCP EF
(46) across the different switches but when it hit the 3750, the
egress traffic was only ~4Mbps.
After reading up
I've been testing our different model of switches to allow for DSCP
transparency by using the mls qos trust dscp command on their
interfaces. All of the switches seem to support this properly and I can
tell when they're overwriting versus allowing the DSCP to continue
through but I came
I've search on Cisco's website to help understand the following message
but I'm not 100% clear on how to find the network/router responsible for
generating these error messages:
.May 19 08:39:06.235 EDT: %MPLS_PACKET-4-NOLFDSB: MPLS packet received
on non MPLS enabled interface Vlan101 L3
figure out the MAC address from there.
Thanks.
Jose
Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 11:57 -0400, Lobo wrote:
I've search on Cisco's website to help understand the following message
but I'm not 100% clear on how to find the network/router responsible for
generating these error
53 matches
Mail list logo
