ASR1000 is the current preferred solution, or so my salesperson tells me.
For various telcos I currently use Cisco 1s for PPPoE but in the future
will change to the new little ASR.
-Bruce
On Jun 28, 2011, at 12:36 AM, K bharathan wrote:
> hi all
> which cisco router can be used for pppoe
hi all
which cisco router can be used for pppoe server (about 1200 customers)
-bharathan
___
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 a cat 6k/7600 will take forever to reconverge with large tables.
On Jun 27, 2011 10:10 PM, "Jeff Kell" wrote:
> On 6/27/2011 2:59 PM, Jason Greenberg wrote:
>> Can someone advise me as to why a 3750 L3 Switch (Metro Model) wouldn't
outperform a 7300 series router as a multi-homed BGP gateway?
On 6/27/2011 2:59 PM, Jason Greenberg wrote:
> Can someone advise me as to why a 3750 L3 Switch (Metro Model) wouldn't
> outperform a 7300 series router as a multi-homed BGP gateway?
They can't scale to a full BGP feed. If you do some exaggerated
filtering and aggregation, maybe; if you just w
Dear Jay,
As far as I know, IPv4 BGP entry is more than 300k entry, I don't think it will
suite with a 3750.
Please refer to routing handling from its datasheet.
I'm agree with the other, if you would run default gateway for multihomed
upstream, 3750 will do.
Hope it help.
Rgrds,
-farisy-
---
James Bensley wrote:
>
> I've had a play with Hydra which can brute force a Telnet session to a
> Cisco device. The problem is Hydra (as far as I can tell) only uses
> dictionary attacks. Does anyone know of a tool that will brute force
> Telnet and/or SNMP communities when given a typical brute
On 6/27/11 1:30 PM, Murphy, Jay, DOH wrote:
> How about when you stack them as a logical switch. Couldn't one leverage the
> memory and processing of the stacking?
If you're taking just a default eBGP route from each external neighbor
and using multi-homing as a primary/failover, you can get away
Because of what in hardware? Switching fabric; ASICs. Memory is upgradeable.
How about considering MTBF. Really, hardware has limitations anyway. Equipment
is replete with all kinds of thresholds. Larger boxes are not exempt per se.
It's really what one is willing to address. Filters, as the man
Posting for list archival purposes as as previously I replied to sender
only.
The answer to your question and more is here
7600
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/7600/ios/12.2SR/configuration/guide/pwr_envr.html
excerpt:
Note Installed power supplies in a system can be of different wattage
On 27 June 2011 21:39, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Are you attempting to test how feasible it is in real-life? Or have
> you forgotten the password? If you have configuration backups and it
> is type 7 you can easily recover it. If it is MD5 and it is 8
> characters of non-dictionary you have rather small
Route limitations are in hardware I believe.
On Jun 27, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Murphy, Jay, DOH wrote:
> How about when you stack them as a logical switch. Couldn't one leverage the
> memory and processing of the stacking?
>
> ~Jay Murphy
> Sr. IP Network Specialist
> NM State Government
>
> IT Se
Not really.
Think of the memory latency to traverse the stack. Generally CPU <-> Memory
bandwidth is measured at rates of speed and access higher than 1 or 10Gb/s.
Taking the PCI Express standard as a basic threshold of getting things into or
out of the CPU, a 16-lane slot starts at 32Gb/s.
How about when you stack them as a logical switch. Couldn't one leverage the
memory and processing of the stacking?
~Jay Murphy
Sr. IP Network Specialist
NM State Government
IT Services Division
PSB – IP Network Management Center
Santa Fé, New México 87505
"We move the information that moves
On 6/27/11 11:59 AM, Jason Greenberg wrote:
> Can someone advise me as to why a 3750 L3 Switch (Metro Model) wouldn't
> outperform a 7300 series router as a multi-homed BGP gateway? ISRs and
> Enterprise class routers are still quite a bit more expensive than the L3
> Switches, but I'm starting
Hi List,
I've had a play with Hydra which can brute force a Telnet session to a
Cisco device. The problem is Hydra (as far as I can tell) only uses
dictionary attacks. Does anyone know of a tool that will brute force
Telnet and/or SNMP communities when given a typical brute force
character set lik
What I meant is spanning tree topology is configurated with network-type
default in global config unless specifically configured as access.
(spanning-tree port type network default ). And on each of the port it set
as normal explicity.
We dont run any VPC and ver is 4.2(6). We rely on spanning tr
am i to assume that your prior statement is incorrect then, wherein you
stated that all ports on the core switch are set to type network?
regardless of whether they are up, down, or lateral -- if the far end
device doesn't support 'bridge-assurance', then the port should be of
'normal' type.
addi
On 6/27/2011 11:59, Jason Greenberg wrote:
> Can someone advise me as to why a 3750 L3 Switch (Metro Model) wouldn't
> outperform a 7300 series router as a multi-homed BGP gateway? ISRs and
> Enterprise class routers are still quite a bit more expensive than the L3
> Switches, but I'm starting
Quimm,
Spanning tree type is normal for all the ports connected to downstream
switched.
spanning-tree port type normal
-Thanks
Prashanth
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Quinn Snyder wrote:
> prashanth --
>
> i see that you have all ports as 'network' ports. i assume this is
> done by invoki
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 14:59 -0400, Jason Greenberg wrote:
> Can someone advise me as to why a 3750 L3 Switch (Metro Model)
> wouldn't outperform a 7300 series router as a multi-homed BGP gateway?
Number of prefixes. A 3750 can take at most up to ~11K routes; more than
that makes it fall back to so
On 06/27/11 21:59, Jason Greenberg wrote:
Can someone advise me as to why a 3750 L3 Switch (Metro Model) wouldn't outperform a 7300
series router as a multi-homed BGP gateway? ISRs and Enterprise class routers are still
quite a bit more expensive than the L3 Switches, but I'm starting to not u
Probably memory and entries in the routing table being the limiters.
Remember (not sure on the 3750) but many devices fall short of the 350+ K
routes needed to install a full table.
On Jun 27, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Jason Greenberg wrote:
> Can someone advise me as to why a 3750 L3 Switch (Metro Mo
Can someone advise me as to why a 3750 L3 Switch (Metro Model) wouldn't
outperform a 7300 series router as a multi-homed BGP gateway? ISRs and
Enterprise class routers are still quite a bit more expensive than the L3
Switches, but I'm starting to not understand why. I understand that L3
swit
prashanth --
i see that you have all ports as 'network' ports. i assume this is
done by invoking
spanning-trew port type network
under the interface configuration stanza or so. in n7k land, this
invokes a feature called 'bridge-assurance' and it must be explicitly
enabled on the other end. it is
I am trying to troubleshoot a issue with spanning tree topology change and
unicast flooding during the topology change which I have not seen in 6500.
I am new to nexus series.
+--++-+
| | ||
|
Lol@ 4.2.2.2
The biggest problem with blocking you tube is that is available from multiple
IP's. Anyone smart enough to rind another on and set their dns host file to it
will easily get around this. Then there's VPN proxy exploits. The best thing
is to implement a web filtering solution.
Se
On the ISRs in 12.4.20T and later.
If you follow the link there and look at the section for Static
Filtering you'll be able to filter sites without paying for the Trend
License.
I will state that personal experience has shown that this doesn't
scale well for a large number of sites in the local f
Hi All,
Is there a way by which we can dynamically manipulate the COST of
redistributed static routes in OSPF with the help of EEM ?
The scenario is as below
We have VPN firewalls on one of our Datacenters and all the necessary Client
connectivity is publised in OSPF ( redistributing static route
28 matches
Mail list logo
