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 12.2(33)SRE6 and the shaping was working
properly,
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
The NPE-G2 fact states:
Q. Are routing protocols supported on the 10/100BASE-T management
interface?
A. Yes, routing protocols are supported on the management interface.
However, the management interface is strictly for management purposes
only, with limited packet forwarding.
We use
Eugene,
I did a little digging on this and it appears there are a couple
of gotchas with this one.
a) Does the boot image you have have the fix for it?
dir bootflash:
If not, we need to get one that does.
b) What code did you upgrade from? From talking with DE, unlcear
exactly what in the
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:17:48AM -0500, Rodney Dunn wrote:
Eugene,
I did a little digging on this and it appears there are a couple
of gotchas with this one.
a) Does the boot image you have have the fix for it?
dir bootflash:
If not, we need to get one that does.
b) What code did
Yep...a hard power cycle is needed.
Rodney
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:12:19AM -0500, Rodney Dunn wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:17:48AM -0500, Rodney Dunn wrote:
Eugene,
I did a little digging on this and it appears there are a couple
of gotchas with this one.
a) Does the boot
Hello,
we haven't upgraded boot image to fixed release.
we upgraded from 12.2.31SB6 code
yes, powercycle did the trick.
br,
Eugene
Rodney Dunn wrote:
Yep...a hard power cycle is needed.
Rodney
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:12:19AM -0500, Rodney Dunn wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at
I wonder if someone else upgraded to 12.2SB train to fix CSCsk65796 ?
Bug Details NPE-G2: all rx frames counted as overruns on built-in gige.
We have upgraded software to 12.2.31SB13 on two routers, reloaded them
and stuck with this
bug again.
Bug Toolkit provided workaround to powercycle
Eugene,
Can you post a 'sh int' and 'sh controller' for the interface?
And 'sh ver' from the box?
Rodney
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 12:29:29PM +0200, Eugene Vedistchev wrote:
I wonder if someone else upgraded to 12.2SB train to fix CSCsk65796 ?
Bug Details NPE-G2: all rx frames counted as
Hank,
Every time I've ever worked on this it's microburst.
The only real way to fix it is a hardware forwarding box that
can do packets at line rate gige.
Rodney
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 09:38:26AM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 02:43 PM 12-09-08 -0400, Rodney Dunn wrote:
Rodney,
On a
That's only applicable if you have a lot of process switched traffic
and you see input drops in 'sh int'.
If you do see input queue drops and the throttle count in 'sh int'
is going up you might be impacted by that bug.
Rodney
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 10:21:41AM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At
At 02:43 PM 12-09-08 -0400, Rodney Dunn wrote:
Rodney,
On a related note, we are seeing input overruns on almost all native GigaE
ports on the NPE-G1. Example on 12.4(21):
GigabitEthernet0/2 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is BCM1250 Internal MAC, address is 0009.446d.ac1a (bia
At 02:16 PM 12-09-08 -0400, Rodney Dunn wrote:
I don't suspect that is going to help because the ignores
are not increasing that would point to:
CSCse05447
Externally found moderate defect: Resolved (R)
7200 ethernet interfaces should not throttle on input queue full drops
Most likely you are
On a related note, we are seeing input overruns on almost all native GigaE
ports on the NPE-G1. Example on 12.4(21):
On the other side, of those NPE-G1 ports, do you see any flow control from
them? I've never seen a G1's counters show pause frame that it sends, but
even watching them
I'm running a Cisco 7206/VXR with an NPE G2, Version 12.4(4)XD4
acting as an LNS.
I'm getting input errors consistently incrementing on the Gig
interface (ignored errors)
Any way to fix this? I saw some discussion a while back about this,
and it seemed to have to do with buffers - but I
Can you bump up your input queue depth:
hold-queue 4096 in
and see if they stop.
I don't suspect that is going to help because the ignores
are not increasing that would point to:
CSCse05447
Externally found moderate defect: Resolved (R)
7200 ethernet interfaces should not throttle on input
No luck... didn't fix it. Is it fixed in a subsequent release? Are
there any other parameters I can tune?
GigabitEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is MV64460 Internal MAC, address is 001a.6d30.091b (bia
001a.6d30.091b)
Description: to gig-fastiron Ethernet11
MTU 1500
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 02:40:04PM -0400, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
No luck... didn't fix it. Is it fixed in a subsequent release? Are
there any other parameters I can tune?
Not really because you can't tune the rx ring depth.
Check 'sh controller'.
What does 'sh proc cpu sort | excl 0.00'
ring sizes: RX = 128, TX = 256
rx_particle_size: 512
rx_pak = 0x0444F908
rx_head = 122
Here are the sh controller and sh proc results.
I'll send the config directly - too much to sanitize ...
Thanks!
Hardware is MV64460 Internal MAC (Revision MV64460-Ethernet)
network link is up
Config is 1Gbps, Full Duplex
Selected media-type is RJ45
GBIC is not present
Ethernet Unit
Hi Guys,
Has anyone successfully increase the interface MTU on the tunnel with MPLS
VPN Inter-AS command mpls bgp forwarding configured at the same time ?
So far I have tried several IOS feature, they can only support either but
not both commands @ the same time.
We are trying to establish
Im seeing duplicate advertise-map statements showing up in SRC with NPE-G1.
neighbor 172.1.0.101 activate
neighbor 172.1.0.101 advertise-map test_inject exist-map test_up
neighbor 172.1.0.101 advertisement-interval 1
neighbor 172.1.0.101 route-map AS65002-in in
neighbor
On Monday 21 April 2008, Scott Mace wrote:
Im seeing duplicate advertise-map statements showing up
in SRC with NPE-G1.
Not sure if these are related.
The case I logged with TAC resulted in bug ID CSCso72824,
which was later superseded by bug ID CSCsj48902.
Cheers,
Mark.
signature.asc
Hi all.
We are lab'ing 12.2(33)SRC on an NPE-G2.
We see the VPNv4 AFI configuration saving a duplicate
configuration for a peer policy template inheritance:
...
!
address-family vpnv4
neighbor x.x.x.x activate
neighbor x.x.x.x send-community extended
neighbor x.x.x.x inherit peer-policy
For G2 vs G1 that's correct.
For ethernet vs. serial the performance from what I recall is less.
Rodney
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:35:32PM +0100, Ultramajestic wrote:
So as far as I understand, the performance is not degraded, isn't it?
El mi??, 20-02-2008 a las 09:30 -0500, Rodney Dunn
So as far as I understand, the performance is not degraded, isn't it?
El mié, 20-02-2008 a las 09:30 -0500, Rodney Dunn escribió:
Philippe,
I need to check back with the BU on it. I thought they were putting
a document out on this G2 processing reporting issue.
Basically due to the way
Philippe,
I need to check back with the BU on it. I thought they were putting
a document out on this G2 processing reporting issue.
Basically due to the way the G2 does CPU accounting it looks
like it's higher at lower loads based on the CPU measurements.
If you put it in the lab and measure
Hello
We are in the processes of deploying our first npe-g2 in production and
I wanted to see what the consensus is for a stable ios version.
The router will be used for pppoa termination and will be running mpls
vpn, bgp cbwfq/llq qos.
thanks in advance
Brian
If you would have asked me a week ago I would have said 12.2SB but its
been left to stagnate in favour of the SRC release which is a real
shame, I've found a number of bugs recently which are just not
documented properly (and not searchable from either new or old bugtools
since they stop at
On 16.01.2008 10:37:25 +0100, Brian Turnbow wrote:
Hello
We are in the processes of deploying our first npe-g2 in production and
I wanted to see what the consensus is for a stable ios version.
The router will be used for pppoa termination and will be running mpls
vpn, bgp cbwfq/llq qos.
, you will have the
SRC train, which is the successor of the SB train.
Thanks
Arie
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Turnbow
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:37 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] npe-g2
Hello
We
, January 16, 2008 3:07 PM
To: Arie Vayner (avayner); Brian Turnbow; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] npe-g2
Hello,
Had a BRAS having an NPE-G1 with IOS
c7200-advipservicesk9-mz.124-9.T1.bin and replaced it with an NPE-G2
with IOS c7200p-advipservicesk9-mz.124-11.T4.bin. No more users
Hi all,
We're (still) evaluating our options to replace our edge/border routing
platform
with something with more growth capacity. Currently, we have (2)
7206VXR/NPE400's (one at each of our Data Centers) and terminate (2) DS-3's in
one, (1) DS-3 in the other, soon to be (1) DS-3 and (1)
33 matches
Mail list logo
