Re: [c-nsp] shaping > 128 mbps - asr9k

There is a limitation with shaping on a child policy on the line cards where the shaping rate on the "bottom" tier can't be above 128Mbps, as you have found out. I believe if you put both classes in the same parent policy you can get around it. For instance put your UDP shaper above the class

Re: [c-nsp] shaping > 128 mbps - asr9k

You should be policing it... not shaping. Arie -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 12:58 PM To: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer); cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] shaping > 128 mbps - asr9k

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco2921 vs 7206VXR/NPE-400

Thanks to all for the helpful input to my original question. It would still be helpful to know the MHz of the processor on the 2921, but it doesn't seem like that is easy information to obtain (we have another one in production at another site and I haven't been able to find any commands that disp

Re: [c-nsp] shaping > 128 mbps - asr9k

policy-map from-internet-child class udp-attack shape average 600 mbps ! class class-default ! end-policy-map -Original Message- From: Aaron [mailto:aar...@gvtc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 2:58 PM To: 'Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)'; 'cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net' Subject: RE:

Re: [c-nsp] shaping > 128 mbps - asr9k

(here's the uncommitted (failing) config... basically I want to shape inbound UDP to 600 mbps. please show me how to accomplish that.) RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:eng-lab-9k-1(config-pmap-c)#show config policy-map from-internet-parent class class-default service-policy from-internet-child shape average

Re: [c-nsp] shaping > 128 mbps - asr9k

>Anyone know how to accomplish shaping traffic at a rate greater than 128 >mbps ? > >When I apply the policy-map/class-map to an interface it fails with this >message. > >'Cannot support child/flat shape rate > 128Mbps' can you please share the configuration you are trying to apply, including p

[c-nsp] shaping > 128 mbps - asr9k

Anyone know how to accomplish shaping traffic at a rate greater than 128 mbps ? When I apply the policy-map/class-map to an interface it fails with this message. 'Cannot support child/flat shape rate > 128Mbps' Aaron ___ cisco-nsp mailing lis

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco2921 vs 7206VXR/NPE-400

That are good news, since 720x seem to be EOL etc. So with "supported" Hardware for the next years, replacement for the 7206VXR/NPE400 G1 G2 or 7201 7301 may be either ASR or 3925E . But what happens with traffic which needs to be fragmented? How does the 29xx 39xx perform? >From the 870's I kn

Re: [c-nsp] policy routing by dest port?

Wouldn't there be some NATing involved? Else what is your DNS server going to do with a destination address that it doesn't own? Chuck -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:26 AM To: 'Cisco-nsp'

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco2921 vs 7206VXR/NPE-400

> > As someone else had suggested, the NPE-G2 is good too, but if you > need > > to support more PA's (especially non-Ethernet, which tax the fabric > > less), it's not that scalable. > > I meant the 7201, of course (which is, essentially, an NPE- > G2 with an extra Gig-E port). > > Mark. But th

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS QOS on ME3600 not working???

Hi Adam, Did you work with TAC or BU on this issue? Can you send me your configuration so that I can take a look at it. I need to class-maps and policies as well as the interface configuration. Best Regards, [http://www.cisco.com/web/europe/images/email/signature/horizontal06.jpg] Waris Saghee

Re: [c-nsp] ME3600 BFD session to A9K breaks after upgrade to 15.3(3)S1a

No, it's not the same, but it's not the same on a working interface either. The 15.3(3)S1a ME3600 has a CLNS MTU of 9213. The 15.3(3)S ME3600 has a CLNS MTU of 1497. The 4.3.1 ASR9000 has a CLNS MTU of 9199. 15.3(3)S1a ME3600 is directly connected to the 15.3(3)S ME3600 and has an ISIS adjacency

Re: [c-nsp] ME3600 BFD session to A9K breaks after upgrade to 15.3(3)S1a

Hi Adam, Does the same scenario work for you? I mean BFD between 9K and ME3600X with the same CLNS MTU. Best Regards, [http://www.cisco.com/web/europe/images/email/signature/horizontal06.jpg] Waris Sagheer Technical Marketing Manager Service Provider Access Group (SPAG) wa...@cisco.com

[c-nsp] policy routing by dest port?

Hi, I have a situation which may require me to reroute all dns traffic in my network comming from subscribers destined to offsite resolvers, over to one of my own resolvers instead. The subscribers are all terminated on 7201 and effectively I would like to have a rule I can drop in that s

[c-nsp] nexus-switche issues no arp-requests

Hallo all, I see a very strange behavior on my two nexus switches. Both are Nexus 5548 with L3-daughter-cards. Both do l2 and l3-switching, ACL-filtering and other things. Furthermore I have a set of servers connected to both switches in a vPC-setup. All in all I do nothing special. After relo

Re: [c-nsp] 6509 "switchport block unicast" wrongly filtering ARP broadcasts (RESOLVED)

Thanks Dale, removing "switchport block multicast" from the ports magically allows ARP to work correctly again. However it also required me to bounce the interface (shutdown / no shutdown) before the "no switchport block multicast" actually seemed to take affect on the port in the same way as "n

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS QOS on ME3600 not working???

This could be a counter issue.. If the traffic is transit you can try to match it at the egress interface, without any policy at the ingress. You could also match it at the ingress of the next device to verify that. On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > 15.3(3)S, 15.3(3)S1,

Re: [c-nsp] ME3600 BFD session to A9K breaks after upgrade to 15.3(3)S1a

Hi Jason, Is the CLNS MTU equal at both ends please? It appears this is again one of the conditions to form ISIS session in 15.3(3)S1 adam ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive

[c-nsp] ME3600 BFD session to A9K breaks after upgrade to 15.3(3)S1a

Before an upgrade to 15.3(3)S1a, a BFD session between a 9K and an ME3600 worked just fine. After the upgrade, BFD session wouldn't come up. I looked at the release notes and couldn't see any notes about behaviour changes in BFD or any specific caveats. BFD still works fine if the adjacent de

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS QOS on ME3600 not working???

15.3(3)S, 15.3(3)S1, 15.3(2)S3 adam From: Pete Lumbis [mailto:alum...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 3:01 PM To: Adam Vitkovsky Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS QOS on ME3600 not working??? What version of code? On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:39 AM, A

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS QOS on ME3600 not working???

What version of code? On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Is anyone using MPLS QOS on ME3600 platform please or I am the only one > hitting the issue? > As seen below all traffic is matched into the first class defined in the > policy-map no matter how the pack

[c-nsp] MPLS QOS on ME3600 not working???

Hi Folks, Is anyone using MPLS QOS on ME3600 platform please or I am the only one hitting the issue? As seen below all traffic is matched into the first class defined in the policy-map no matter how the packets are marked. If I would remove the class core_class7 from the policy-map (and might ha

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco2921 vs 7206VXR/NPE-400

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 02:03:52 PM Mark Tinka wrote: > As someone else had suggested, the NPE-G2 is good too, > but if you need to support more PA's (especially > non-Ethernet, which tax the fabric less), it's not that > scalable. I meant the 7201, of course (which is, essentially, an NPE-

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco2921 vs 7206VXR/NPE-400

On Monday, November 11, 2013 08:42:02 PM Adam Greene wrote: > Well, the 7206VXR rebooted unexpectedly a few days ago, > with a "System returned to ROM by error - an Error > Interrupt" which usually implies a hardware issue of > some kind. I reseated all components and removed unused > cards to min

[c-nsp] Cisco2921 vs 7206VXR/NPE-400

1. Cisco2921 vs 7206VXR/NPE-400 (Adam Greene) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:27:46 -0500 From: "Adam Greene" To: Subject: [c-nsp] Cisco2921 vs 7206VXR/NPE-400 Message-ID: <006001cedefa$f43f6a30$dcbe3e90$@webjogger

Re: [c-nsp] VTP problem between remote PoP

I am not shure that understand your question right, But if question about physical layer then yes it is a fiber optic line. At the same time it is a metro ethernet link 2013/10/31 Blake Dunlap > Is this an actual fiber run you control end to end, or actually a metro e > link? > > > On Thu, Oct

Re: [c-nsp] IPSEC and NAT

What happened is that when I establish the IPSEC it works fine , then when I start the NAT traffic the IPSEC get lostThe issue was with the overload keyword in the NAT statement and now it's working fine BR, Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:08:16 -0500 Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IPSEC and NAT From: emcca...@g