tortilla_chip posted:

Anyone attending Cisco Live in Orlando?

e: And like beer?

Haydez posted:

The place, a bank, I started working at (8 years ago) was using 1.25.0.0/16 as the internal address scheme. For a 160 employee place. Got that fixed fast at least.

bort posted:

You guys use 10.1 10.10 and 10.100 also? Fancy that!

Buffer posted:

Are there any limitations imposed based on the size of the peer-link when you configure a Nexus for virtual port-channel? I keep seeing 2x10GE but it's unclear if this is per 20GE VPC or if some kind of magic happens.

The reason I ask is that I'm tempted to get a pair of Nexus 5596Ts. I'd configure them initially with 15 virtual port channels composed of 21 ports on each switch. Would I really be ok with just 2x10GE for the peer links? Or would it be a really good idea to plug in some QSFP modules and interconnect them that way?

1000101 posted:

Not really. The control traffic that goes over the peer link will fit more than comfortably in a single 10 gig pipe. Beyond that you're adding for redundancy and bandwidth of your data traffic. If you think you'll have a lot of traffic going from one of your 5ks to the other feel free to use 4 links or more for your peer-link.

1000101 posted:

That said I think you're still going to be limited to 16 interfaces per port-channel with 8 active at any time. Don't think you can have 21 members in a given channel-group.

ruro posted:

This sort of thing happens to me all the time . But still my director doesn't understand why I want IPv6 so much.

QPZIL posted:

I have a very simple RIP question, and I just want to make sure I'm doing things right.

For my hypothetical scenario that I've been playing around with in my lab, I have 3 routers making up 3 networks, 192.68.1.0, .2.0, and .3.0, all /24. In reality I'm just console'd into Router1, but pretend there are client PCs plugged into the switch getting DHCP addresses.



To set up RIP, as I understood it, I needed to add the broadcast networks for each router.
That is to say, it should suffice for Router1 to say "hey, I know all about the 192.168.1.0 network", therefore I could run network 192.168.1.0 on it, Router2 can say "hey, I know the .2.0 network" (network 192.168.2.0), and then Router3 knows the .3.0 network (network 192.168.3.0).

When I did that, nothing routed. Eventually, when playing around, I added network 192.168.1.0 to Router2 and network 192.168.2.0 to Router3 and things started working.

My question is - to set up RIP on a router, do you need to define ALL physically connected networks? Not just the one you want it to be broadcasting for?

edit-- that's a bunch of wordy mess. What I thought would work:

code:

Router 1:
   network 192.168.1.0
Router 2:
   network 192.168.2.0
Router 3:
   network 192.168.3.0

And what I ended up having to do:

code:

Router 1:
   network 192.168.1.0
Router 2:
   network 192.168.1.0
   network 192.168.2.0
Router 3:
   network 192.168.2.0
   network 192.168.3.0

Sepist posted:

The network command tells RIP which interfaces it should advertise RIP out of (any interfaces that are within that network range), not which networks to advertise to other RIP enabled routers. This is the case with RIP/OSPF/EIGRP whereas BGP it is the command to list which networks to advertise as your own.

Typically you would do network 0.0.0.0 to enable it on all interfaces and put passive-interface on by default, then manually choose which interfaces you want dynamic routing protocols enabled on by removing passive-interface for them individually.

Buffer posted:

Can you clarify this? The only traffic traversing the 5ks will be from one VPC to another. Am I really OK with just 2 10GE links for redundancy and can expect those vpcs to roughly perform like they were real port channels? I guess what has me a little leery is that it seems a bit too good to be true. My instinct is that I should size the peer link for the amount of cross-traffic that could occur without VPC.

quote:

It'd be 15 separate virtual port channels each with 1-2 interfaces per switch for a total of 21 used interfaces - to start with anyway.

1000101 posted:

In a perfect world you shouldn't have a whole lot of traffic going over your vPC peer link. If every device connected to my 5k is using vPC then as long as everything is healthy you shouldn't see much of anything going over that link. However if there's a failure (say one of your downstream vPC connected devices loses one leg of it's vPC) then you might see some data traffic going over the peer link.

In my lab environment I have a pair of Nexus 5ks acting like my "core" and the only traffic I see going over the peer link is non-VPC stuff. i.e. it's plugged into 1 5k but not the other and it happens to be talking to a device on the other.

nzspambot posted:

Has anyone done OR is it even possible to do a native IPv6 GRE tunnel?

I can do IPv6 over a IPv4 tunnel but cannot do one with a source/dest of an IPv6 address, complains about address family must be the same source.

It was with a gr-0/0/0.0 IPv4 and a gr-0/0/0.1 as an IPv6

In Junos as well

DeNofa posted:

I haven't done it but as far I know it should be exactly like setting up a GRE IPv4 tunnel except you'll use "tunnel mode gre ipv6" and "ipv6 addr" on the Tunnel interface configuration. I'll try and look into it tomorrow if I have a chance.

nzspambot posted:

ahh interesting; let me try that magic command

edit: hang on those are cisco commands; this is junos

psydude posted:

Gonna ask the obvious question here: is the printer manually configured? And if so, is it on the correct subnet?

DeNofa posted:

Whoops! Sorry. Sounded like you were saying you needed for Cisco as well as junos. Can't help you there

nzspambot posted:

all good! Cisco I know I can do this

this is the error btw

nzspambot posted:

that is irrelevant as a inet6 address or lack thereof isn't the cause of the error

edit: proof:

code:

[edit interfaces gr-0/0/0]
+    unit 1 {
+        tunnel {
+            source 2001:df0:43f:10:bac::1;
+            destination 2001:df0:43f:10:bac::3;
+        }
+        family inet6 {
+            address 2001:0df0:043f:20::1/64;
+        }
+    }

{primary:node0}[edit]
me@srx# commit check 
[edit interfaces gr-0/0/0 unit 1]
  'tunnel'
    Destination address must be ofsame type as source address
error: configuration check-out failed

Bob Morales posted:

Dumb VLAN question. We have a pc and printer on .3.x addresses. Port 4 of the managed switch is set with the PVID for VLAN 3 (our .3.x addresses).

If I set port 4 to be tagged for VLAN 3, machines plugged into the other ports on the managed switch can still ping the PC, but not the printer. If I untag the port, they can ping both the PC and the printer (and ultimately print to the printer). How is the traffic getting to them if it's not tagged with that VLAN? And why would it only affect the printer and not the PC?

code:

[managed switch  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8]
                          |
                          |						  
            [dumb switch  1  2  3  4  5]
			        |     |
				|     |
		             [ pc ][ printer]

Partycat posted:

I'm pretty sure you can put them on a shelf, or just set them on the floor or whatever. IIRC the bracket we use in the two post racks is basically a cantilevered shelf.

Fatal posted:

Anybody else loving the wonderfully non-functional 15.0.2(SE2+)? Lets see, 15.0.2(SE2) has a memory leak (on 2960Ss) where if you have too many devices requesting DHCP you lose console access until reboot. 15.02(SE3) has a TACACS bug (on 3560/3750s) that kills all access, yaaaaayyyyy for summer deployment ie, busiest time of the year for me.

Fatal posted:

Anybody else loving the wonderfully non-functional 15.0.2(SE2+)? Lets see, 15.0.2(SE2) has a memory leak (on 2960Ss) where if you have too many devices requesting DHCP you lose console access until reboot. 15.02(SE3) has a TACACS bug (on 3560/3750s) that kills all access, yaaaaayyyyy for summer deployment ie, busiest time of the year for me.

ruro posted:

You're the first person I've seen using 15.x on access switches - everyone else I know is sitting pretty on 12.x for the time being. Generally if it's a .0. release I won't touch it.

Mugaaz posted:

This is not strictly speaking a Cisco question. Is there any in-between when it comes to networking work? I did positions where you work at 100% all day, then dread your upcoming week as on-call where you have to take 25 hours of calls in the middle of the night in addition to normal work. Then I moved to enterprise where I got payed a lot more, but twiddle my thumbs all day. Its incredibly boring and I have little sense of fulfillment, but none of the crazy stress from before. What sort of industry can you build/design/fix most of the day from 8-5, then go home with little/no on-call or stress. Is that a pipe dream? The stress from the former was too much for me to keep a healthy lifestyle, but I felt incredibly satisfied by what I did (well, not the pay but that's because the company was poo poo). I'd like to get that feeling back, I feel like my skills are slipping everyday because I only get to do something challenging every couple months. Advice?

ruro posted:

Good grief how many calls?! I guess I'm fortunate to have only ever worked on relatively stable networks.

Right now I'm in a role that's an amalgamation of L3 support and network design/engineering which is sounds like what you want. I get the occasional call from L2 but most of the time it's 8-5 (well, 7-4 for me huzzah no end-user interaction). So what you want is definitely out there, and personally once I finish fixing or adding all the value I can I tend to move on.

Mugaaz posted:

What sector are you in?

Mugaaz posted:

Fatal posted:

Anybody else loving the wonderfully non-functional 15.0.2(SE2+)? Lets see, 15.0.2(SE2) has a memory leak (on 2960Ss) where if you have too many devices requesting DHCP you lose console access until reboot. 15.02(SE3) has a TACACS bug (on 3560/3750s) that kills all access, yaaaaayyyyy for summer deployment ie, busiest time of the year for me.