--- Begin Message ---
On 10/11/2020 10:33 am, Scott Voll wrote:
16.9.6 or 16.12.4?
and Why?
Any issues seen in the 16.12 line? I've seen some unexplained reboots in
the 16.9.5 train that TAC can't explain so need to upgrade. 16.9.6 is the
Starred release. I've not been impressed with the
--- Begin Message ---
On 21/06/2020 7:30 am, Mark Tinka wrote:
Personally I would only recommend Meraki for a small business with
very basic and well defined requirements. Even then once you factor
in the cost of licensing + hardware and compare it to a low end Cisco
Enterprise product that
--- Begin Message ---
On 20/06/2020 4:14 pm, c...@marenda.net wrote:
I've been told Merak is very nice... if all you're interested in is "sell
to
Enterprise customers and make lots of cash".
We asked the sales-person weather that meraki devices can handle ipv6
(as customer traffic) and
--- Begin Message ---
On 24/01/2019 6:23 am, Giles Coochey wrote:
I think the tack the OP was meant to imply that Cisco Bughunt for issues
leaves a lot to be desired, with terse messages attached to bugs,
incomplete versions affected, etc...
The thing that sends me off the deep end with bugs
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
Have you read the Best Pratices guide:
http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/switches/datacenter/sw/design/vpc_design/vpc_best_practices_design_guide.pdf
Specifically the section about vPC multicast?
Reuben
On 20/10/2016 9:27 PM, Yham wrote:
Hi All,
I have two
--- Begin Message ---
On 16/01/2016 10:43 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 09:07:00AM +, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Cheers for the replies guys - I'm really interested in the rational
behind moving to USB from traditional RJ45
portsrealestate?boggles the mind.
--- Begin Message ---
On 9/01/2016 3:53 AM, Chuck Church wrote:
What are your needs? 10GE? Layer 3 capable? There are a lot of small
Cisco switches. The main difference between the 3650 and 3850 is the
wireless controller thing to my knowledge. Not really beneficial to a SAN
switch.
--- Begin Message ---
On 1/09/2015 6:43 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Jason Berenson wrote:
Was interested in getting any pointers anyone might have about
multihoming. I've got an ASN and am working on a /24 from ARIN now. I
was thinking about a pair of Cisco 3560's one
---BeginMessage---
On 14/07/2015 9:34 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:06:37AM +, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
Or from a different angle why would they bother designing test
procedure that tests every possible permutation making sure the box
is error free if no one is using
---BeginMessage---
On 3/06/2015 7:59 PM, Nick Cutting wrote:
Thank you for the suggestion - I've been using these in the lab quite
a bit lately as I've lost faith in GNS3 (watching it fall apart when
showing clients proof of concept - this won't happen on the real
kit..) , however I am a little
Another similar change I've noticed recently in so far as release notes
and details of changes go is this - release notes for 15.1(4)M9:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/15_1/release/notes/15_1m_and_t/151-4MCAVS.html#pgfId-62747
All resolved bugs for this release are available in the
On 26/05/2014 4:39 PM, Andrew Miehs wrote:
On 26 May 2014, at 3:58 pm, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
If you're looking for something really modest, with little to no
opportunity for growth, consider the CSR1000v.
Thats actually a pretty cool idea! I keep forgetting that the thing
On 10/03/2014 11:45 AM, Chris Russell wrote:
A cisco switch/rtr without eigrp.. first time I've encountered it!
Hi Steve,
Debated this with Cisco a while back - apparently more aimed at PE
edge, so less routing capabilities more MPLS.
Last time I asked the scaled metro license was only
On 10/12/2013 8:43 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
If you want to do it with BGP, I'd recommend setting up a couple of VMs to
act as route reflectors (with e.g. bird or quagga or something) and
creating a very simple BGP community policy: tag your transit prefixes,
your peering prefixes and your
Hi
I've been having intermittent problems logging into CCO in the last few
weeks - and the troubleshooting I've done so far seems to indicate the
problem only occurs when I'm connecting to it over IPv6. It seems the
actual authentication to www.cisco.com is handled by a site with
hostname
On 9/07/2013 10:32 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Or, after an external DoS hit their Frankfurt node which we're connected
to, we received an unsolicited e-mail we had a DoS here, leading to some
packet loss. Problem has been fixed, our apologies. We didn't even
notice up to that point... experience
On 27/05/2013 10:37 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Basically all the images go through EFT with almost no exceptions.
Problem most vendors have is getting good feedback from the sites
with that early code. Seen that for over a decade with many vendors.
Jared Mauch
Valuing good feedback hasn't been my
Yes it certainly should work, however I found that it doesn't always
work properly, specifically for SIP traffic (TCP and UDP traffic worked
fine). The SIP ALG is broken and you'll find traffic will exit one
interface but the SIP ALG will sometimes rewrite the SIP header to have
the other
Using that logic you could probably also argue recovery time would be
even quicker again by disabling Spanning Tree entirely.
Funnily enough, not too many people seem to recommend completely
disabling STP to achieve that goal though.
Reuben
On 17/03/2013 11:34 AM, Andrew Miehs wrote:
The
On 11/03/2013 8:52 PM, Gordon Bryan wrote:
Andrey/Andrew,
It will be a very small network to begin with - single P router,
single PE router and a number of switches for hosting. This will
hopefuly quickly scale to a dual-site configuration with two P
routers and two PE routers but even then it
On 11/03/2013 9:43 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:18:31AM +, Gordon Bryan wrote:
Can I ask what your thoughts are on core IP addressing? Do you have
specified global ranges for this purpose with matching iACLs or do
you use another method altogether.
We use a
On 19/02/2013 9:21 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote:
This is a classic example of when a Gig port in name is not a Gig port
in throughput, ie it may link up at that speed but you'd be lucky to get
the rated throughput in all but ideal circumstances.
Funny thing is that many lower end switches (i.e.
The 2960 is a floor/access switch - and at the low end of the range. It
isn't positioned or designed to be used in the type of bursty traffic
environment that the OP was using it for.
This is a classic example of when a Gig port in name is not a Gig port
in throughput, ie it may link up at
This documents may help answer your questions about buffer sizes and how
they are shared amongst ports on the two switches:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/solutions/Enterprise/Video/tpqoscampus.html
Look down at the QoS and queueing information (ignore the bits about
TelePresence)
Reuben
On 25/01/2013 7:25 AM, Aaron wrote:
Why does l2protocol peer stp show up as an option if it's not supported? Is
that one of those things with ios that commands are there but don't work type of thing?
...anyway, is MST (802.1s) supported on efp's?
Aaron
sv-b-ME3600-test#
On 24/01/2013 1:29 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
One thing thats really biting me atm is that per-user aaa/qos support,
available in 124 mainline seems to have moved only to S train for 15x,
leaving me (again) with the interesting dilemma of which features on
which routers I want to continue using or
On 22/01/2013 9:59 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Nobody knows what's inside any given IOS build. As a rule of thumb,
whenever you want to turn on something new, the specific combination of
hardware + software + feature pack that you have will not support it.
(Yes, this does annoy me to no end)
Hi Aaron
See:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/metro/me3600x_3800x/software/release/15.2_4_S/configuration/guide/swevc.html#wp1002521
•When STP mode is PVST+ or PVRST, EFP information is not passed to the
protocol. EVC only supports only MSTP.
We're running Rapid-PVST but it only
Hi Daniel
On 21/12/2012 8:26 PM, daniel@reaper.nu wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to setup Multicast VPN (MVPN) on a Cisco ME3600. It's a
ME-3600X-24FS-M and the software is
me360x-universalk9-mz.151-2.EY1a.bin. There seems to be an issue with
the MTI. I only see packets outbound but no packets
On 17/12/2012 8:57 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 02:32:27PM -0800, Randy wrote:
It also may be worthwhile for your $Employer to consider some form of
*service-contract* with Cisco. CCO has a wealth of information (for your own
edification). You will need a
On 6/12/2012 10:54 PM, mert ozkul wrote:
Hi All,
I have query about ISP Design.
Why some ISP`s (Ex: BT) using dual AS`es on their network?
What are the advantages of using more than one AS in the ISP network?What can
be achieved if you use more than one AS?
Thanks,Best Regards,
-Mert
I
On 28/11/2012 10:52 PM, Steve McCrory wrote:
Hi Group,
We've had a complaint from a customer that their security license on a
1941K9 is showing as Right To Use when they are expecting it to show
Permanent:
Index 2 Feature: securityk9
Period left: Life time
License Type:
On 27/11/2012 9:30 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
Normally I'm not a big fan of proprietary protocols, but MST is so
awesomely sucky for Campus environments (map all your VLANs to
instances before you start, and never change it - yeah, right!) that we
mandate Cisco compatible PVST in all our edge.
On 24/11/2012 9:16 PM, Hitesh Vinzoda wrote:
Hi,
I have recently noticed that routers running OSPF connected to two
different ports and communicating via EFP's configured on Cisco ME3600 can
not form OSPF neighborship.
Cisco IOS Software, ME360x Software (ME360x-UNIVERSAL-M), Version
On 7/11/2012 3:56 PM, Mal wrote:
Did you scope the purchase yourself ?
Mal
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Reuben Farrelly
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 3:10 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On 29/10/2012 7:11 PM, BALLA Attila wrote:
Hello,
I met an interesting issue: there is a Cisco 7200 NPE-G2 with
12.4(24)T7, this router terminates some broadband users, we applied
shaping on the virtual-template and we surprised: shaping was not
working. We upgraded (downgraded?) to
On 27/10/2012 5:58 AM, Andrew K. wrote:
A downfall for using the SVI on the ME3600 is you can not apply an
inbound/outbound policy map to the SVI.
You can apply inbound and outbound policy maps to a Service Instance
though (which are the ports that are facing your customer):
policy-map
On 24/10/2012 7:44 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
The only places we disable autoneg in our network are to connect to same
$FORMER_GOVT_TELCO, which makes me sad :o(
A bit OT, but a similar $FORMER_GOVT_TELCO here in Australia does the
same thing on their business grade ethernet products.
They
On 25/10/2012 1:44 PM, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote:
Hi
I have a bunch of ASR903 and ME3600x with EVCs configured on them. I
can see the traffic statistics using 'show ethernet service instance
detail ' or even 'show ethernet service instance id 2 interface
gigabitEthernet 0/4/0 stats'. Is there a way
No issues whatsoever with 15.1M (and very recently 15.2M) on the NPE-G1
here. I've got MPLS/L2TP/BGP running on it and I haven't had a single
problem with this code so far. I suggest you keep to the latest
rebuilds though.
12.4 is probably a bit of a lost cause as it's not going to see many
If you get an E-License Delivery instead of the license coming
preinstalled on the switch, the process is still actually very
straightforward.
All you have to do is fill in a short form online and enter a key from
the E-License PDF, the actual license file itself then gets emailed back
to
appreciated,
Eric Louie
619-743-5375
*From:* Reuben Farrelly reuben-cisco-...@reub.net
*To:* Aaron aar...@gvtc.com
*Cc:* Mattias Gyllenvarg mattias.gyllenv...@bredband2.se; Eric A Louie
elo...@yahoo.com; cisco-nsp
I'd like to further clarify this - as I think the subtleties here
between layer 2 and layer 3 MTU may be giving a misleading picture.
The Layer 2 MTU (AKA frame size) is set globally, in the same way as on
a Catalyst floor switch such as a 3560/3750 is done.
This is performed by something
Hi Steve
A few things to check:
1. You have vlan 200 created on the 3524 (the commands you have in the
diagram will be permitted without the actual vlan existing on the switch)
2. You may need to set the q-in-q outer tag on the 3524 with the
following commands on the Fa0/1 port:
15.2(2)S2 released today for this platform has this as a Fixed defect:
CSCtw79488
Symptoms: Multicast is not forwarded out on EVC.
Conditions: This has been observed with Cisco IOS Release 15.1(2)EY and
EY1a and with the following configuration:
So you may be in luck.
Reuben
On 10/08/2012
No it won't. The OP wants a device which can handle 1G of throughput.
A 1941 has the required MPLS, MTU and crypto functionality with a DATA
and SECURITY license (and are quite adequate as a low end MPLS device of
say, sub 100M) but it won't handle anywhere /remotely/ near 1G of
throughput -
On 7/07/2012 11:45 AM, Dan Letkeman wrote:
Hello,
Looking at replacing a 3750G-12S-12 with an ME-3600X-24FS-M. I have
never used or seen a 3600x, and I was wondering for the basic switch
services does it have the same command line options. Just doing dot1q
trunking, maybe some qos marking,
I'd recommend 15.2(2)S1. 15.1(2)EY is a branch release which probably
won't have a long lifespan now that these switches have been integrated
into mainline S code.
15.2(2)S1 has been solidly stable for us with the exception of what
appears to be a cosmetic bug in that these messages are
I have a requirement for a 1G/10G access switch also for a meet-me room
project I am working on, and the 4500-X ticks all the boxes - except for
the MPLS capability. The lack of this feature means I will likely have
to backhaul data back to an MPLS capable switch or an ASR1k in another
On 29/05/2012 6:09 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Is it best practice to set all switches to max mtu?
Big enough to achieve what you need to achieve. If all your L3 devices
only use 1500 bps MTU, and no EoMPLS tunneling or whatnot, there is no
real benefit in upping the switch MTU. There does not
Yes - the 5548 does routing. We have 2x 5548UP's with the Layer 3
daughtercard in our small corporate DC.
It does routing, yes, but you need to be aware of caveats around the
feature. I suppose you could say that about any Cisco switch, but bear
in mind that NX-OS is aimed and targeted at
I'd probalby go 15.1M - but not 12.4.24T.
12.4T is gone, dead, buried and won't see many (if any) more bug fixes.
I wouldn't bother going there. The upgrade path from that is 15.0(M)
or 15.1(4)M anyway which has 'MD' status.
You could also consider 15.1(3)S2 as that seems to be quite good
12.4(24)T End Of Life notice:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps8802/ps6968/ps6441/eol_c51-632350.html
What tool are you referring to - what is the Cisco feature tool ? Do
you mean Feature Navigator? And what are you trying to look up?
Reuben
On 17/05/2012 12:04 AM,
In the absense of Waris chiming in, PBR isn't yet supported on the
ME3600, I believe.
Last posting about this as of Dec 2011 was that PBR was on the roadmap,
and I haven't yet seen it come up as a new feature in any of the
software releases subsequent to this.
You may (or may not) be able
15.1(4)M1 that I'd like to accept the above, but
am unable to figure out the secret combo.
Thanks,
-c
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Reuben Farrelly
reuben-cisco-...@reub.net wrote:
What version of IOS code are you running?
Just in case this apples to you, note that the feature Per-user QoS
2:48 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Wednesday, March 07, 2012 06:01:41 AM Reuben Farrelly
wrote:
Correction. I made a mistake in my testing there...
If I have:
ipv6 prefix-list PERMIT-IPV6-ANY seq 10 permit ::/0 le 64
Then yes the IPv6 specific route-map matches first and
the correct community
On 6/03/2012 4:54 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
For static routes, assigning a tag to the routes and
referencing that in a route-map which is attached to a BGP
policy will get you what you want. The tag is useful to
ensure you don't end up redistributing more routes into BGP
than you should.
For
On 6/03/2012 9:46 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 04:29:45 PM Reuben Farrelly
wrote:
WTF? The IPv6 prefix has been matched by the IPv4
specific route-map sequence 10, and the community from
that route map of 38858:2504 'set' on the router. It
should be falling through
On 6/03/2012 10:29 PM, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
Have you tested whether having a dedicated route-map for the
IPv6 session works around this problem?
Yes - it doesn't work around it. I have just replicated the route-map
exactly but removed the IPv4 specific match (seq 10) from the new copy
On 21/02/2012 8:18 PM, ar wrote:
Any known issue with ME3400 metroipaccess IOS?
I am thinking that as the ME3400 is more of a Catalyst switch than a
router, it won't be supported (or if it does work at all it will be in
software not hardware) in much the same way that other low end Catalyst
Looks like just up on CCO in the last week:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps10902/ps12332/data_sheet_c78-696791.html
So finally - a 10G 1RU SFP+ access device. It seem to be targeted at
enterprise aggregation but I imagine would have some appeal in service
provide space
I've been experimenting with a new (and what I thought was improved
design/modification) in terms of our internal and external BGP routing,
and I've hit a bit of a snag.
We are largely an end user AS but we do have a couple of eBGP customers
connecting to us who require AS transit.
Hi John,
Firstly I wouldn't even bother looking at the 2851 or 3845 now - these
are the first generation of ISR's and have been superseeded by the ISR
G2's (2951, 3925 etc). You'll get perhaps 2-3x the performance of a
2851 out of a 2951 for much the same money, as well as being able to
Hi guys
Is GRE tunnelling supported on this platform?
I can see no reference to it in any of the configuration guides - but
also no reference to it in the unsupported commands section.
Has anyone tried to do this?
We've a need to run GRE tunnels for a URL filtering solution at our Head
The command:
router#show ip cef switching statistics feature
Will show you which feature is causing traffic to be punted to CPU.
Reuben
On 23/12/2011 7:42 AM, Chuck Church wrote:
You're on the right path. The more important number is the packets in/out,
as opposed to the characters. Look
On 15/12/2011 1:58 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Thursday, December 15, 2011 07:33:32 AM Reuben Farrelly wrote:
Yikes. I don't have this problem in my deployment so far as I have
pushed this job onto edge routers to do this function on all
ingress/egress points to our network.
Are you saying you
I took the plunge and have now gradually upgraded 5 ME3600X units in
production to 15.1(2a)EY1a software which was released a couple of weeks
ago.
So far:
- IPv6 is in, enabled, and it works well carrying 50+ prefixes and
OSPFv3 within our AS. Not a hugely taxing environment, but IPv6
On 15/12/2011 4:06 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
- IPv6 is in, enabled, and it works well carrying 50+
prefixes and OSPFv3 within our AS. Not a hugely taxing
environment, but IPv6 works.
I tested IPv6 - yes, it's enabled but massively broken:
...
o As much as every bone in my body was
On 15/12/2011 10:33 AM, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
- We also need to be able to see and graph interface counters for each
EVC/VLAN for Cacti/Solarwinds (at present this does not work on VLAN
interfaces)
Now:
sw1.qld#show ethernet service instance detail
Service Instance ID: 780
Service Instance
I've recently started to explore the more interesting features of the
ME3600X platform and one of the things I have been looking at is
starting to provision customers using EVC type configuration, so I can
do vlan tag remapping and other nice things in the coming months.
Previously I've been
On 14/11/2011 9:32 PM, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:
Reuben,
On the ME3600X you cannot have the same VLAN used as an SVI for Layer 3
bridge-domain on a service-instance, and at the same time also applied
as a regular allowed VLAN on a trunk or as the VLAN of an access port.
Check that VLAN780
/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 13:56 +1000, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
Doesn't seem like much difference between 12.2(58)SE and 15.0(1)SE in
terms of either features or bug fixes, so if you've taken the (brave)
plunge and are already running 12.2(58)SE it looks like a fairly
Yes.
Besides, IPv6 routing works fine and is done in hardware on the same
config with 12.2(55)SE3 with no other changes (desktop IPv4 and IPv6
routing template on both).
Reuben
On 28/07/2011 7:10 PM, Michele Bergonzoni wrote:
Il 28/07/2011 9.35, Reuben Farrelly ha scritto:
I've had some
What sort of timeframes are we now looking at for the next release of
code for the ME3600/3800X's? There was some talk about new software
supporting VPLS related features coming out in June, and a bunch of
15.0(SE) releases has just turned up on CCO for the lower end floor
switches like the
Yes:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps11781/prod_release_notes_list.html
Doesn't seem like much difference between 12.2(58)SE and 15.0(1)SE in
terms of either features or bug fixes, so if you've taken the (brave)
plunge and are already running 12.2(58)SE it looks like a fairly minor
On 11/07/2011 6:00 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 09/07/2011 17:22, Derick Winkworth wrote:
The ASA I think can support up to 500 contexts now, but with contexts enabled
I'm hearing there is no crypto support. I'm not sure this is an impediment for
us but I can see it being an issue for folks.
Common misconception - IOS 15 didn't introduce enforced licensing, but a
number of new platforms which ship with 15.X *did*.
It's a platform dependent feature, primarily on the newer ISR G2s and
880s/890s. The original ISR's, 870s, 7200 etc have no such enforcement
under either 12.4 or 15.X.
On 5/04/2011 7:33 PM, Daniel Holme wrote:
On 5 April 2011 09:51, Phil Mayersp.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
On 04/05/2011 09:23 AM, Daniel Holme wrote:
Hello folks
Does anybody have any experience of poor performance (very low
throughput limitation) when using vlan-mapping in 12.2SX?
Hi Per
Can you or anyone else who has access to both the ME3600X and ME3800X
enlighten as to any of the other differences between these two platforms?
I had come to the view that the ME3600X and ME3800X were practically
identical apart from some QoS buffer differences, licensing and slight
Yes this switch is fine for running BGP with the caveat that you won't
be able to take a full BGP table on this hardware. I believe the
hardware TCAM is limited to about 250,000 routes.
You will most certainly want to upgrade that IOS though. It's years out
of date. You should find that
A 2900 would cope fine with this, for sure.
Just for kicks I ran a full BGP feed to an 1841 one day a few years back
and after the initial onslaught of populating the routing table it coped
fine with the incremental BGP updates coming in after that.
Not that I would ever recommend it but
On 9/12/2010 10:28 AM, Jeremy Bresley wrote:
On 12/8/2010 1:44 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
I know from previous conversations that the architecture as well as some of
the defaults for the ME series are different than the traditional switching
platforms. I was curious if there were any reasons why
Where amongst the new-fangled download manager can we find the latest
ROMMON's for these cards, and in fact those also for the sup720 on the 7600?
I was off looking for ROMMONs for the sup720 last night, and it seems
that many of the files for the 7600 are sprinkled amongst the 6500
software
Hi,
Looking at the release notes for 12.2(33)SXI5 I've noticed that Vlan
Translation is listed as a software restriction on the ME6524 platform.
Does anyone know if this is likely to be ever resolved (noting it's listed as a
'software' restriction and not 'hardware') ?
Short of
We are doing just this with a couple of 2851's - MPLS/BGP/OSPF/IPv6/NAT for a
small POP. The one 2851 I have in mind is maxed out with 1G third party
approved DRAM and also runs a full BGP table. Initially after boot it takes a
little while to munge the full BGP feed (3 or 4 mins from memory)
Also new in 12.2(55)SE is an SDM profile called lan-base routing for the 2960
and 2960-S models.
You can now do basic Layer 3 switching/routing on the 2960s...no routing
protocols, only static routes, but still a nice new feature nonetheless.
Reuben
On 17/08/2010 8:45 AM, Raymond Lucas
I've been reading up about uRPF on Cisco's website, at:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2t/12_2t13/feature/guide/ft_urpf.html
I've heard many people suggest that having uRPF filtering on in an ISP
environment is a good idea (and best practice).
However I'm grappling with the idea in
On 2/04/2010 1:44 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Thursday 01 April 2010 11:04:42 pm John Kougoulos wrote:
Have you tried clearing the cookies from *cisco* ?
usually this works for me...
Yep, no joy.
It's erratic - access to documentation works for the most
part, other times (or other parts) it
Hi,
On 30/03/2010 6:49 PM, Per Carlson wrote:
The ME-series do have much more SP oriented features opposed what
Desktop Switching Business Unit ships (e.g. Cat 3xxx).
The ME3750 and ME3400(-nonE) are two (in my opinion) failed attempts.
The ME3750 lacks any decent customer ports (all RJ45),
What version of IOS code are you running?
Just in case this apples to you, note that the feature Per-user QoS
policies applied via RADIUS is broken in all versions of IOS 15.0, and
as far as I can tell, many versions of 12.4T including 12.4(15)Tx and
possibly earlier, on multiple platforms.
And don't forget - just in case this applies to you:
ip mtu 1500
does NOT apply to IPv6, you'll need to -explicitly- set ipv6 mtu 1500 as
well :-)
Reuben
(who recently found this out the hard way with IPv6 OSPF)
On 22/12/2009 7:08 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Chris
Hi,
What version of code are you running?
I have found 12.4 mainline worked ok, but somewhere along the 12.4T series and
including 15.0(M) I cannot apply any QoS policies to Virtual-Access interfaces
- policies just don't apply. I have a TAC case open for this now...
Reuben
Clue Store
Well there's always this one, for a laugh:
CSCso05336
Symptoms: A Cisco 1811 router reloads when trying to connect to irc.freenode.net
during the first 36 hours following a reload.
Conditions: The symptom is observed only in the first 36 hours following a
reload. Workaround: Do not connect to
I'd suggest you have two choices:
1. Jump straight to 15.0 mainline rather than run 12.4T. You can of course go
to 12.4T but as 15.0(1) mainline superseeds and includes bug fixes from
12.4(24)T it will be the new stable train going forward.
You could say that 15.0(1) is not that well tested,
On 23/04/2009 1:07 PM, Ian Henderson wrote:
Felix Nkansah wrote on 2009-04-23:
Among other things, their requirement is for their HSRP or GLBP routers
to automatically synchronize their running configurations.
You could avoid the problem entirely, but still meet the objective by using VSS?
On 8/09/2008 8:43 PM, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:
David,
please check CSCsu35584, it will be fixed in the upcoming 12.4(20)T1
rebuild and the above restriction will be removed..
oli
Hi Oli,
What is the approximate timeframe on 12.4(20)T1?
I'm asking because I'd really like
The OP has stated 12.4(15) but this release does not exist as a mainline
release, I can only assume that 12.4(15)T is intended (totally different
codebase).
In terms of 12.4(11)T though, note:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/products/ps6441/products_field_notice09186a008088cc2f.shtml
is
Greetings,
I've recently come across a case whereby an 877 router running 12.4(4)T7 I was
looking at had:
interface Dialer0
ip address negotiated
interface Vlan1
ip address 203.123.155.233 255.255.255.248
However the Dialer was being assigned the address 203.123.155.233 by the
remote
It might be worth pasting the output of:
router#show int
router#show proc cpu sorted (only need first 10 lines or so)
and
router#show run int fa0/0
router#show run int fa0/1
when it is running at 99%, to this list as well. You may well be running the
router beyond its capabilities, but it
Feature Navigator is wrong, then. BGP is already available in IPBASE for the
ISRs but only in the T train:
See:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6441/prod_release_note09186a00804a19a2.html#wp1451994
Where it states that:
-
BGP in IP Base
BGP is available in the IP base software
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
