On Sunday 06 May 2007 21:43, Mark Tinka wrote:
* recommend the use of IP prefix lists as opposed to
distribute lists; the former are more cumbersome.
s/former/latter
Mark.
pgpChl7X6X9tn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
On Sunday 06 May 2007 03:39, Joel M Snyder wrote:
Any and all feedback is welcome!
Very good paper!
On point 12a (page 27), though:
* recommend the use of IP prefix lists as opposed to distribute
lists; the former are more cumbersome.
* I'm personally very wary of route-flap dampening, in
On Monday 07 May 2007 15:34, Pete Templin wrote:
True, but distribute lists can be more powerful.
I'm curious... in what way distribute lists would be more
flexible than prefix lists (perhaps I've been using prefix lists
far too long). Might you have an example?
Mark.
pgpCvKhHhboKl.pgp
On Sunday 27 May 2007 09:55, Pelle wrote:
i do fully agree with saku: in the choice of running
outdated software with bugs and security issues (while
supported) or using up-to-date software (while
unsupported), i would choose the fresh software 10 times
out of 10.
We've been running
On Monday 28 May 2007 12:48, Alex A. Pavlenko wrote:
Most works fine, but some customers began to complain that
they can not access certain sites in the Internet. I'm not
sure but the situation looks like there is MTU mismatch
somewhere. Is it mandatory to check and adjust MTUs when
turning
On Monday 28 May 2007 22:50, Gert Doering wrote:
Uh, admittedly I only I tried this on 2950G-12/24 yet.
As the 10/100-only models are a bit different, they might
or might not support 1530 - I can't say.
The 2950's (non-G) do not support jumbo frames.
Mark.
pgpYRraSATgj8.pgp
Description:
On Thursday 31 May 2007 08:35, Gert Doering wrote:
Just to correct this small bit: default in IOS for packet
ACLs is default-permit *if the ACL is completely
missing*.
But usually you're dead in the water as soon as you
copy-and-paste a new version of the ACL and the first line
gets
On Saturday 07 July 2007 17:06, Gary Stanley wrote:
I'd look at the 7201, it has a couple gb of memory, quite a
few gig ports, only consumes 84W(?) of power, and is in 1u
form factor.
Would this box be capable of anything beyond 1Gbps (much less
a sustained 800Mbps throughput)? From previous
On Friday 10 August 2007 22:47, Drew Weaver wrote:
Is there a particular scheme for downstream switches to
verify that an upstream router is actually functioning
properly on a periodic basis?
Sounds like a probable candidate for BFD; but doesn't quite
explain why your box stops routing.
Hello all.
I've been going over some thoughts about scaling MPLS LDP
authentication in an environment where all MPLS LER's or
LSR's on the same subnet require LDP authentication.
I've had a look at the 'mpls ldp password option' and 'mpls
ldp password required' features, but these require
On Monday 20 August 2007 14:01, Tojonirina RAONISOAFIANINANA
wrote:
I would like to ask if a Cisco Router 1700 Series supports
WIC 4T Card.
Do you mean the HWIC-4T (haven't heard of the WIC-4T, could be
wrong).
According to:
http://tinyurl.com/2e2b7z
the HWIC-4T is NOT supported on the:
On Friday 24 August 2007 02:57, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
WHY is the name command used on ip route? WHEN is it
proper to use it, and when is it improper? Has anyone
gotten burned USING it or NOT using it?
I have seen it provide *functional* use with cisco-avpair
attributes under an AAA
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 02:46, Justin Shore wrote:
Does anyone know if the MTU on the 8-port 2960G can be
raised? I need to carry IP/MPLS on a VLAN through one of
these switches. The radio backhauls go up to 1536 so I the
2960 needs to support that at least.
According to:
On Thursday 30 August 2007 17:51, Dracul wrote:
1. My 2851 is already ok for 2x 2MB link BGP
Right.
2. I need to upgrade my 256MB memory to 512 MB
I would say take the full 1GB. It's always best to max. out
the memory on the routers so you have one less problem to
worry about, especially
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 21:06, Vincent De Keyzer wrote:
The fact is that I can create a .1q interface on a PA-4E
port -...
Just curious; does the 802.1Q encapsulation actually work on
this PA?
IIRC, IOS did not originally support 802.1Q on 10Mbps-only
Ethernet interface; you required
On Friday 07 September 2007 11:36, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Yup! I just verified it between a 7204 (with PA-8E's and
a PA-4E) via a 2924XL to a 3640:
Interesting... thanks.
Cheers,
Mark.
pgp46pMO0mxQY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
cisco-nsp
On Tuesday 11 September 2007 22:04, Justin Shore wrote:
I'd recommend a 7201 or a short-stack 7600.
Skipping off a bit... considering that the 7600 uses the
same Supervisor (say, in this case, SUP720-3BXL) across all
supported chassis', I'd be careful in making sure I get a
chassis that will
On Tuesday 11 September 2007 21:28, Justin Shore wrote:
In particular I want
to confirm support for the...
Uncertain about the rest, but...
ACE,...
We looked into this a couple of weeks back. It turns out the
ACE (well, at least the ACE20-MOD-K9) will only be
supported on the RSP720 when
On Saturday 15 September 2007 20:51, a. rahman isnaini r.
sutan wrote:
Yup, too much money to spend.
My solution last couple years, one allot replaced with up
to 10 ETINCs for each service gateway we have been
running on and the traffic load redistributed.
Couldn't agree more.
Mark.
On Wednesday 19 September 2007 02:06, Vinny Abello wrote:
I know we're up to SB9 last I
checked, but I haven't tested that yet. On SB6, when I
started configuring mpls ip and mpls traffic-eng
tunnels on interfaces with other routers and the LDP
adjacency comes up, I notice a slight level of
On Saturday 22 September 2007 04:34, Gert Doering wrote:
Don't forget that IPv6 and MPLS cost extra license per ES
card.
Technically, the v6 and MPLS code would still run if you
configured it, but without the proper licensing, such a
configuration would considered illegal and (TAC)
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 07:16, Justin Shore wrote:
Does anyone have any ideas what I can check? What causes
the 5300 to think a modem is bad and is it really, in
fact, bad?
What IOS version are you running on this box?
Cheers,
Mark.
pgpKLQkx314oj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 22:32, Justin Shore wrote:
Hi, Vinny. Thanks for the reply. Yes, they are MICA
modems. The IOS rev is 12.3(22) running the Enterprise
Plus w/ crypto featureset. I bumped it up this spring
during the migration.
I think that could be your problem.
You are most
On Thursday 10 January 2008 18:47, William Jackson wrote:
We are considering upgrading to G2 cards for more
throughput and I want to ask about any possible limits
with BGP tables etc that I see mentioned on other
platforms?
We once crudely tested multiple full BGP sessions on an
NPE-G2 to
On Thursday 10 January 2008 15:56, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
VPLS is only supported with SIP/SPA cards with SUP720 or
RSP-720. VPLS requires extra processing power on ports
that SIP/SPA cards have
I find this bit annoying... it would have been nice if Cisco
supported VPLS on most or all of
On Friday 11 January 2008 01:14, Phil Bedard wrote:
There are certainly alternatives for doing VPLS
termination that are cheaper than Cisco, when you look at
the cost of the ES20. Foundry and Alcatel both make
lighter weight dense MPLS-enabled switches that Cisco
doesn't have a good
Hello all.
We are trying to find a clever, scalable way to police
customer upstream traffic (inbound into PE router from the
CE router) if the destination is to a specific set of
prefixes behind one or more routers.
Matching an ACL that defines destination prefixes is not an
option as the
Looks like we found what we were looking for:
- QPPB
Cheers,
Mark.
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: QoS Policing Upstream
Date: Thursday 17 January 2008 11:45
From: Mark Tinka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Hello all.
We are trying to find a clever
On Monday 21 January 2008 23:32, Ultra wrote:
Can anyone explain me the differences between the Cisco
7606 and the Cisco 7606-s?
I can¡t see it in the documentation I downloaded from
cisco.com
Some differences taken off the 7606-S's data sheet:
*
As part of the Cisco 7600 Series, the
On Monday 04 February 2008, Whisper wrote:
Moreover, you need to provide a show version if you
want people to comment on whether an IOS versions
supports a specific feature or not. My gut says though,
that a 2600-NonXM with 12.2 is not going to have VPN
support.
Actually, 12.3(25) on the
On Wednesday 13 February 2008, Kim Onnel wrote:
Plus it would be unfair to compare price and performance
of 7600 to an M320 and Juniper would never put an M7i or
M10 as P, so its all about Positioning not just 'pure
technical' judgement.
This depends on the size and complexity of the
On Wednesday 27 February 2008, Ian MacKinnon wrote:
Nexus 7000 I am sure has it on the roadmap.
My understanding is the Nexus 7010 has little control plane
support for typical Metro-E, i.e., MPLS, e.t.c.
Otherwise I guess CRS-1...
Cisco are currently positioning the CRS-1 as a 100Gbps/slot
On Wednesday 27 February 2008, Darryl Dunkin wrote:
If you're using /32 masks for your loopbacks (as you
should): router ospf
redistribute connected subnets
The key part is to define 'subnets'.
I'd advise against using 'redistribute' to announce any kind
of prefixes into any kind of
On Wednesday 27 February 2008, Phil Mayers wrote:
I think that's probably a bit dramatic (no offence
intended). We've used redis connected / static for
customer routes (edge networks) for quite a while now
here with no problesm; initially in a VRF-lite model:
If you read further on in my
On Wednesday 27 February 2008, David Barak wrote:
I prefer to use passive default, and then only enable the
correct interfaces.
Agree!
I also like the fact the IOS has introduced interface-level
commands in 12.4 to enable OSPFv2 - that's definitely
welcome.
Mark.
signature.asc
On Thursday 28 February 2008, Phil Mayers wrote:
Yes I read that, but I am having a hard time seeing what
the fundamental difference is between redis connected
inside a VRF versus not (for the same protocol). Surely
if one is bad, the other is?
Because a vanilla VPN VRF has a very limited
On Thursday 28 February 2008, Tim Stevenson wrote:
To clarify, this chassis is 80G per slot *ready* (as are
all the E chassis versions) - but there is no 80G/slot
fabric shipping today.
Okay, this clarifies my earlier-posted doubts.
My guess is folk would be more inclined to assume
On Thursday 28 February 2008, Brandon Price wrote:
Does anyone have links to some good examples of this
configuration?
We normally cover this in regional workshops.
Will send you a link to some slides that discuss this
routing policy, tomorrow.
I am in the process of moving our small
ISP
On Thursday 28 February 2008, Ramcharan, Vijay A wrote:
There is also the 6509-V-E chassis (which kinda looks
like the Nexus only less shiny) that supposedly offers
80Gbps/slot (which is not exactly what you are looking
for I guess but still might be worth investigating).
I'm curious how
On Thursday 28 February 2008, Tim Stevenson wrote:
We have (or will shortly - launched, but not shipping) -
the Nexus 7000 has 230G per slot capacity. The initially
shipping 10G card can leverage 80G of that, but the
initially shipping fabric will scale to support much
higher capacity LCs in
On Thursday 28 February 2008, Dino Farinacci wrote:
Nope, the Cat6K has many more applications. Here are some
differences between the two platforms:
I'm familiar with the various features of the 6500 and Nexus
7010; what I was asking was what plans Cisco have for
customers that require
-BGP-Techniques.pdf
Cheers,
Mark.
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Loopback Advertise in OSPF
Date: Thursday 28 February 2008
From: Mark Tinka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Brandon Price [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday 28 February 2008, Brandon Price wrote:
Does anyone have
On Thursday 28 February 2008, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
Unless you need a brand-new feature, or need to support
brand-new hardware, T-train code should not be running on
a production router.
Agree.
To hijack the thread some :-), we have a couple of boxes
running 12.4 mainline due to some
On Thursday 28 February 2008, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:
I guess we are talking about 7200 routers,...
Yes, I'm referring to the 7200 router family running 12.4
mainline.
so I would
suggest to wait a bit with SRC, and in the mean while
deploy 12.2(31)SB. This train will remain alive for
On Monday 03 March 2008, Jimmy wrote:
The output rate-limiting is not working. The traffic
still can go above 310M and can hit 1G.
I have created SR with cisco. They are saying there is no
work around for this except that we use ES20 to use
policy-map on the interface.
Hmmh, I'm sure MQC is
On Tuesday 04 March 2008, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
The same happened to me too. 1 out of 10 AS5300 has
failed the past year, mostly due to PSU.
I've had better luck with the ones I've played with in
recent years.
The issue I had with them was that since they are, to put it
in the
On Monday 17 March 2008, FAHAD ALI KHAN wrote:
Guys
Hello.
Im stuck in configuring MPLS L3VPN in Cisco + juniper in
my test lab environment.
As Oli has suggested, a copy of your configurations on both
IOS and JunOS would help.
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
On Thursday 20 March 2008, Sam Stickland wrote:
A structured grammar for IOS configuration :)
Sounds like you're asking for IOS XR... well :-).
I'd be happy if the number of IOS feature sets reduced to
not more than 2 or 3, but I understand this is asking for
too much given the history of
On Saturday 22 March 2008, Eric Cables wrote:
A recent network audit has discovered that Proxy ARP is
enabled on pretty much every L3 interface in the network.
As a Cisco default, this isn't surprising, since no
template configs have it disabled.
The question is: whether or not I should go
Hello all.
(posted to NANOG too; please excuse the length of the
message)
Considering the scaling techniques currently available for
VPNv4/L3VPN deployments as regards MP-BGP route reflectors,
what do folk think is currently the most elegant way to
deploy this that provides an even
On Monday 24 March 2008, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:
Well, most of the L3VPN deployments I'm aware of (which
includes some very large SPs) still use a single iBGP
mesh of dedicated VPNv4 RRs, some flat, some using
hierarchical RR structure. RR partioning via rr-group or
using other
On Monday 24 March 2008, Mark Tinka wrote:
Beyond that is what we are thinking about. We might be
able to live with additional routing information at the
PE routers initially, but it would be an area of concern
at scale.
Perhaps to add, the implementation of RFC 4684 (Route Target
On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:
what do you mean by this? The PEs would discard all
routes they're not interested in anyway, or am I missing
something? Or do you mean that you want to avoid
advertising routes which will be dropped anyway?
Correct - since the some
On Thursday 27 March 2008, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
I still haven't found any reason for keeping a low MTU on
L2 switches (although i don't know if any L2 protocols
can generate such large frames which could possibly get
dropped in a 1500 link).
We have gone with 9,000 bytes across the
On Thursday 27 March 2008, Dan Armstrong wrote:
The reason I don't want to raise it too high - is if
we're selling TLS services to a customer, (ie a VLAN
provisioned on 2 ports on different switches, carried
across our core/trunks) - I don't want them being able to
send any packet larger
On Tuesday 01 April 2008, Alex Balashov wrote:
Naturally, a Layer 3 switch is a smarter idea than a big
Layer 3 VLAN router-on-a-trunk-stick these days, but the
budget isn't there right now.
Not if you're doing heavy QoS.
We've been hit with issues where QoS commands exist on Cisco
desktop
On Monday 07 April 2008, Phil Mayers wrote:
Honestly, I don't mean to sound too combative, but Cisco
do not need to be diversifying at this point; they need
to be focussing.
Agree...
IOS, IOS XR, IOS XE, NX-OS, CatOS, along with the various
idiosyncrasies of each (and their *children*) does
On Tuesday 08 April 2008, Jose wrote:
Hi group. I came across some mention of VPLS support for
the 7200VXR on Feature Navigator with the 12.2(33)SRB/C
IOS. I'm just curious what kind of VPLS support is
available for this platform? I know it can do EoMPLS
fairly easily but can it actually
On Tuesday 08 April 2008, Uddin, Tahir wrote:
When connecting a CE to a PE, is there a minimum
recommended BGP hold down timer. I am currently using 90
seconds with both of my carriers but it is causing
applications to time out when there is a failure in one
of the carriers network or if a
On Tuesday 08 April 2008, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:
well, Fast Session Deactivation only helps you on
non-directly connected eBGP sessions (i.e. multihop),
possibly along with an IGP (or static routes with object
tracking or something like this) to provide next-hop
reachability, so
On Tuesday 08 April 2008, Uddin, Tahir wrote:
With this picture,
CE1-PE1MPLS cloud-PE2-CE2
If next hop tracking is enabled on CE1, and there is a
problem between PE2 and CE2 or an issue in the cloud,
would it still be useful?
I cannot give you an experienced response as
On Tuesday 08 April 2008, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:
well, no. For connected, you don't need any new feature,
the fast-external-fallover feature causes the session
to drop once the connected route goes away (i.e. the
interface goes down). This has been default behaviour for
years, no
On Wednesday 09 April 2008, Gert Doering wrote:
Indeed. Worse, they are now building increasingly
different chassis types with different capabilities -
6500-E with lots of power, and 7600-S with nice and
shiny high-availability EOBC (if I understand the
differences right).
What I would
On Wednesday 09 April 2008, Phil Mayers wrote:
I was under the impression the PFC is not an FRU.
Well, AFAIK, you can upgrade a SUP720 with a PFC-3A to one
with a PFC-3B or PFC-3BXL.
The upgrade kit also comes with a label to attach to front
of the supervisor module, identifying its PFC-type
On Friday 11 April 2008, Jeff Cartier wrote:
I'm fairly well versed in the Cisco devices and the
configuration of those devices through the CLI using
Cisco IOS...but I'm curious, and up for the learning
experience, of starting to familiarize myself with
Juniper.
I'm looking for some
On Friday 11 April 2008, Wink wrote:
It seems easier to find things w/reference to the
routing-instance you are dealing with or the interface
you are dealing with at the moment, within the
configuration.
I've had a chance to play around with IOS XR - it's a good
thing Cisco have done
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
On Wednesday 16 April 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
L2 point to point (Martini tunnel and similar) is okay.
VPLS, not a chance.
Agree... L2VPN's are great especially if your customers are
clued.
VPLS still has a lot more maturing to do, we think. We are
approaching it cautiously, but see a
On Friday 18 April 2008, Lincoln Dale wrote:
obviously the recommendation would ba NAMED ACL every
time.
Except for where you can't use them, e.g., NTP access
groups.
But yes, we prefer named access lists as well, if not for
anything else than their manageability, and use them
wherever
On Friday 18 April 2008, Lincoln Dale wrote:
an enhancement we used for NX-OS is that there is no
such thing as a standard ACL, extended ACL, numbered ACL,
named ACL - everything is a named ACL including what
you'd have for NTP.
for legacy reasons, such a change would be hard to
retrofit to
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
On Monday 05 May 2008, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Hey all,
Can someone let me know if/when Cisco supports 4byte AS
Numbers in BGP in the current IOS stream (not XR or XE).
According to http://www.swissix.ch/asn32/doku.php, it's
meant to be mid this year for 12.5T - you might want to
check
On Monday 05 May 2008, Marco Huggenberger wrote:
12.5T late 2008 in the meantime use AS23456 ;)
From the other side of the pond, J recently released 9.1,
which now introduces support for 4-byte ASN's to their
mainstream platforms.
Cheers,
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On Wednesday 07 May 2008, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
The issue with VRFs is that it can't do policy routing,
because it's already a routing table selection... I agree
that box security should be taken care with CoPP. Put
Internet customers on the main VRF, but carefully design
ACL,
On Wednesday 07 May 2008, Pete Templin wrote:
What software and hardware are you using?
JunOS (M-series) and IOS (7200-VXR).
If it's the
right stuff, there was a neat presentation at NANOG42
that showed a cool way to enforce peering policy on an
interface, without having to dedicate a
On Friday 09 May 2008, Chris Riling wrote:
I've done some research on SSH in IOS and I've only
been able to find the usual information on how to
implement SSH; (generate keys, change transport, etc.)
but I'm more interested in seeing if I can use key files
for authentication without a
On Thursday 29 May 2008, MKS wrote:
Hello List
Is some vendor out there that offers single strand SMF
10GbE (X2/xenpak/whatever).
Does someone know if this is on cisco's roadmap?
Cisco aren't doing 10Gbps yet - they are doing mux'ed 1Gbps
links over CWDM (can use LACP to connect up to
On Thursday 05 June 2008, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
Does anyone has experience with MPLS-TE interoperability
between IOS (specifically ME6500, but it's probably like
any other 12.2SX IOS) and JUNOS
(recent/stable/good-for-service-providers version) ?
In addition to Oli's comments, you might
On Tuesday 10 June 2008, Deepak Jain wrote:
In the old days, null was handled by CPU (software
switched), so lots of us old-timers got into the habit of
using loopback instead of null. On a modern platform it
should make no operational difference provided you have
everything you need set up
On Tuesday 10 June 2008, root net wrote:
I have a customer that wants a 100/1000 Mb/s pipe into
our network for our local customers. This customer is
also a customer but he has a dedicated 10 Mb/s circuit to
the Internet and is maxing out on bandwidth. Wishes to
buy the 100/1000 Mb/s pipe
On Wednesday 11 June 2008, Jared Mauch wrote:
No, you need to utilize the primary IP address for your
routing protocols. Having cisco enforce this also will
help you make fewer mistakes in your network
configuration, or overcomplicate the topology.
Agree, we find secondary IP
On Thursday 12 June 2008, Paolo Lucente wrote:
Full featured QoS is there. IHMO, there is
an interesting option of running the 12.2SR train onto
it.
Yeah, but be careful if you're looking at SRC.
While comprehensive, it's riddled with bugs left, right and
centre.
We've tried it in some
On Monday 16 June 2008, Vira W wrote:
My first problem is in IGP configuration inside AS 100.
I'm using OSPF. I still confused how to make non-BGP
router (C,E,B,D) understand how route the packet
transitting this AS.
Well, if the routers can't talk BGP, then, as others have
mentioned, some
On Thursday 19 June 2008, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
I have been asked to make some tunnel / securisation of
an internal using 2 cisco 2811 with IPBaseK9 IOS
software.
The commercial documentation says that Cisco 2811 can
do IPSec... Now does IPBaseK9 can do that ?
Is there any pointer about
On Wednesday 25 June 2008 11:13:55 pm Pete Templin wrote:
Every BGP prefix in our network gets tagged with at least
one community, that of a magic code, upon
origination/learning/injection/whatevah. It's basically
of the form ourAS:ABCDE, where A indicates the type of
route (customer, ours,
On Friday 27 June 2008 09:38:25 pm Phil Bedard wrote:
They are a good fit for Enterprise IP/MPLS networks which
may not have full routes, since they generally default to
a firewall somewhere for that. Also if you need
something like a cheaper EoMPLS aggregation box they fit
that need as
On Saturday 28 June 2008 06:38:46 am Gert Doering wrote:
You could run 6PE -
I find 6PE, personally, adding complexity.
or just route IPv6 in the core, which
will work fine (about 1100 IPv6 prefixes in the global
BGP table as of these days).
Which is what I'd prefer - dual stack is
On Wednesday 02 July 2008 23:34:42 Mike Johnson wrote:
How am I able to utilize thousands of devices in a flat
IGP domain? I thought
only a couple hundred is recommended before deploying
multiple areas.
Our school of thought has always been, build scalability
from the beginning even though
On Friday 04 July 2008 20:54:48 Felix Nkansah wrote:
Thanks guys.
I thought it has some special shutdown procedures or
commands.
Which is something we wish for on Cisco's new ASR line,
seeing as it has a hard drive and all.
Current documented procedure to shutdown the ASR is to
reload as
On Monday 07 July 2008 17:58:33 Mark Tech wrote:
Hi, I don't need anything special, I'm just wanting to
make sure that I can label switch on these plain cards
using RSP720's on a 7600 chassis as its not clear in the
Cisco docs that I've found. If not I'd like to know what
extra cards would
On Thursday 10 July 2008 06:03:31 Jose Leitao wrote:
Today I upgraded a 3560 to
c3560-advipservicesk9-mz.122-44.SE2, and looking at the
output of show version, I noticed something rather
peculiar:
cisco WS-C3560-24PS (PowerPC405) processor (revision N0)
with 0K/8184K bytes of memory
On Thursday 10 July 2008 20:58:26 Steven Pfister wrote:
- As a first step, we're going to replace the I/O
controller with the new one using a FE GBIC, and put the
PA-GE in along with the PA-A6-OC3MM until its time to cut
over to gigabit Ethernet. Is there any restrictions on
where we can put
On Monday 14 July 2008 13:44:02 Vikas Sharma wrote:
My questio is - does BFD implementation in Cisco support
Juniper / Huawei CPE? Does Cisco's implementation is as
pe standard? has anyone tested it?
We run BFD between our Cisco and Juniper kit - works fine,
nothing fancy in the
On Wednesday 16 July 2008 18:10:00 Garry wrote:
Technically, it is supported, as each of the two buses
have 600 bandwidth points, with an STM-1 interface taking
up 300. Question is whether it might be recommendable to
get a second router for redundancy reasons, e.g. if you
are terminating
Folks, is there an elegant way to ignore the attached bit in
IOS?
Cheers,
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On Friday 18 July 2008 03:25:29 Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)
wrote:
r(config)#router isis
r(config-router)#ignore-attached-bit
r(config-router)#
I'm not kidding.. :-) it's a hidden command, though..
Thank you sir :-).
Cheers,
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
On Tuesday 22 July 2008 00:16:02 Rhino Lists wrote:
access-list 111 deny tcp any any neq www
access-list 111 deny tcp host 192.168.1.188 any
access-list 111 permit tcp any any log
Try this for your ACL, instead:
deny tcp host ip.of.squid.box any eq www
permit tcp your.ip.net.block
On Wednesday 23 July 2008 03:26:26 Justin Shore wrote:
What I was told was that it was an unintended feature.
Basically that means that while it worked it wasn't ever
part of the intended design and wasn't ever tested. It
could have adverse affects on other things; then again it
also might
On Thursday 24 July 2008 05:19:28 Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists
wrote:
r(config)#router isis
r(config-router)#ignore-attached-bit
r(config-router)#
When/why would you want to do that?
Just to add to what Shankar mentioned, in our particular
case, we only use IS-IS to carry our infrastructure
On Tuesday 29 July 2008 07:43:53 Andrew Gristina wrote:
Operationally I haven't found them that different from
other Cisco routers (other than the hardware).
Same here, not that different.
Just that with current IOS XE 2.1.1, some line cards are not
supported, but that will come with later
1 - 100 of 2136 matches
Mail list logo
