|
Great, thanks!
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2007 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Personally I use the Keyspan one, but that's because I use a macbook pro, and it was the only compatible one on the market at the time I bought it. What serial console software do you use? I have an older G4 PowerBook that I wouldn't mind carrying around instead of my heavier Dell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2007 16:01
|
|
|
jwh posted:What serial console software do you use? I have an older G4 PowerBook that I wouldn't mind carrying around instead of my heavier Dell. Zterm
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2007 17:06
|
|
|
Nevermind - I found it after changing my search terms: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/core/7206/port_adp/config/3875in.htm#wp1115595
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2007 22:02
|
|
|
just a short follow up to this:jwh posted:What serial console software do you use? I have an older G4 PowerBook that I wouldn't mind carrying around instead of my heavier Dell. The big obstacle that I ran into is that there aren't a lot of serial adapters out there that have updated drivers for intel macs. As far as I know, Keyspan offers (every)mac compatible devices, and generic ones based on FTDI chips will work if you download the FTDI driver from the chipmaker's site. http://www.ftdichip.com/FTDrivers.htm
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2007 00:35
|
|
|
nex posted:Just for my own curiosity, how different is the interface compared to standard IOS?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2007 01:12
|
|
|
The short: I'm trying to add a cisco switch into my network, using vlan 900 and with a different subnet then the rest of my network. Main network is 10.0.1.0/24 and vlan 900 network is 172.16.3.0/24 The problem: When I connect in this switch, if I use native vlan 900 I get some strange errors. Follows: code:code:code:
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2007 22:14
|
|
|
ILikeVoltron posted:Anybody have any ideas why this is happening? Each side has a different dot1q native vlan, causing spanning tree to receive BPDU's into the wrong VLAN. Make sure both sides are configured as dot1q trunks with the same native vlan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2007 22:39
|
|
|
jwh posted:Each side has a different dot1q native vlan, causing spanning tree to receive BPDU's into the wrong VLAN. So I'll need to track the specific port that this switch is plugging into and set his native vlan to the same as this new one? ie: 900? I think the problem with that right now is because this is passing through a Summit first before it's hitting the second cisco I showed you here. I'm going to bring this into the closet and plug it directly into one port on the cisco and try setting that port to the native vlan 900.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2007 22:47
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:just a short follow up to this: I use a keyspan USB to serial adapter with a program called zTerm that I found online to connect to my devices. Seems to work okay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2007 23:22
|
|
|
ILikeVoltron posted:So I'll need to track the specific port that this switch is plugging into and set his native vlan to the same as this new one? ie: 900? What's going on here, is that something isn't tagging a BPDU that's leaving with a dot1q header, and it's being received on another switch into a different vlan, where the ID doesn't match. Spanning tree is noticing this and blocking the port. It's actually a feature. I'd make your life easier by using a dedicated, "go-nowhere" vlan as your dot1q trunk native vlan. Or, alternatively, make your native vlan a dedicated management vlan. Things get weird when you've got two production vlans, one of which happens to also be the trunk native, versus the other, tagged vlan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2007 23:49
|
|
|
jwh posted:Or, alternatively, make your native vlan a dedicated management vlan. Things get weird when you've got two production vlans, one of which happens to also be the trunk native, versus the other, tagged vlan. Better off leaving your native as a go-nowhere VLAN (on 12.1+ switch IOS code I think you can even prune the native off of trunks by not including it in "switchport trunk allowed vlans"). Native as a management isn't a good practice since you can plug stuff you didn't mean to into your management network by accident, rather than having to make a conscious decision to put something in there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2007 00:40
|
|
|
Girdle Wax posted:Better off leaving your native as a go-nowhere VLAN (on 12.1+ switch IOS code I think you can even prune the native off of trunks by not including it in "switchport trunk allowed vlans"). Native as a management isn't a good practice since you can plug stuff you didn't mean to into your management network by accident, rather than having to make a conscious decision to put something in there. See, I've always done this, and still do, but my Cisco account team swears people stopped doing this sometime in the late nineties. I still think it's a good idea, for what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2007 05:33
|
|
|
GPF posted:I'm going to come over and rub myself on your boxes. Just fair warning. Fairly different. Some commands are the same like sh ip int bri, but it will give you a deprecated warning. By poking around enough you can figure out how to do pretty much anything you can do in IOS. Though putting an IP on the box is... not very intuitive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2007 06:22
|
|
|
So, I managed to kind of force myself to upgrade to Vista 64 bit the other day (long story). Everything is peachy, save one thing--there appears to be no 64-bit friendly Cisco VPN Client software that can do IPsec. Which, unfortunately, I need to connect to a few things. According to Cisco, this ain't happening quite yet. Is there any hope besides doing some sort of hokey "run virtual XP box to access other network" angle?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2007 15:41
|
|
|
wwb posted:So, I managed to kind of force myself to upgrade to Vista 64 bit the other day (long story). Everything is peachy, save one thing--there appears to be no 64-bit friendly Cisco VPN Client software that can do IPsec. Which, unfortunately, I need to connect to a few things. According to Cisco, this ain't happening quite yet. Is there any hope besides doing some sort of hokey "run virtual XP box to access other network" angle? From what I've heard from other people in the same boat, there's nothing else you can do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2007 15:57
|
|
|
XakEp posted:From what I've heard from other people in the same boat, there's nothing else you can do. Ugh. That is what I figured. Motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2007 20:10
|
|
|
GPF posted:I'm going to come over and rub myself on your boxes. Just fair warning. IOS-XR is usable by anybody that knows IOS, but you are going to get lost pretty easily for a while when actually doing config changes. They basically ripped a bunch of things from JunOS that were good and added them into IOS - modularity, commits on configs, etc. The other major difference that trips most routing types up is the change of route-maps to RPLs - its a very different language then route-maps. I am just now getting the hang of it, but I have not had a box to seriously play with it on - all of our boxes in the field that use it are production. Thanks, but I prefer not breaking service for customers while playing on a box! A side note : did you know the CRS 8x10g cards are oversubscribed? Only 40g backplane per linecard!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2007 08:15
|
|
|
mezoth posted:A side note : did you know the CRS 8x10g cards are oversubscribed? Only 40g backplane per linecard! I wonder if that's something they can upgrade with new fabric modules in the field, it would suck if IEEE decides to standardize on 100GbE instead of 40GbE and everyone who bought into CRS had to forklift to get non-oversubscribed interfaces. The 6500/7600 8x 10GbE cards are also 2:1 oversubscribed (Cisco seems to like their 40G/slot fabrics)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2007 13:44
|
|
|
Girdle Wax posted:
That can be a misleading metric though, the whole point of the distributed switching cards is that intra slot switching doesn't have to touch the backplane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2007 13:49
|
|
|
mezoth posted:commits on configs Yes, please!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2007 15:04
|
|
|
I have been told by Cisco that IOS-XR is eventually coming for every platform - they are working on the 7600/6500 version right now as a primary task for my company. Commits and commit rollbacks are a sweet sweet thing however! As for the distributed switching thing - if you have a CRS, you are very very likely to be concerned about more then just one blade of linecards - or even more then one chassis if you really scaled up! And afaik, there is no upgrade available at this time for the fabic on the CRS - if there was, we would probably be using it in several locations. On the 7600, traffic to the first 4 ports has to hit the backplane to get to the last 4 ports on the card - so it is much less misleading then it appears. I also do not know the 8 port linecards chipset limitations - the 4 port card on the 7600/6500 chassis is not full line rate either, even assuming 100% unicast traffic (19.2gb per 2 ports from the chipset)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2007 15:54
|
|
|
mezoth posted:On the 7600, traffic to the first 4 ports has to hit the backplane to get to the last 4 ports on the card Are you talking about the 6708-10G linecard?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2007 17:14
|
|
|
jwh posted:Are you talking about the 6708-10G linecard? I believe the architecture is like this on the 6708, but I know it is that way on the 6704 - it has to do with the fact that they did not build internal cross connects between the DFC controllers. Since I cannot find the presentation I read on the 6708 to confirm what my memory is telling me, I will accept that I might be wrong on this point. I am trying to remember, but I believe it was one of the key reasons my organization did not go with the 6708 card even for edge routers where we thought we would never hit 10g - backplane congestion is becoming an issue in our more loaded chassis as it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2007 19:46
|
|
|
Everything old is new again: http://cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps4324/products_announcement0900aecd806ed5d2.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2007 20:14
|
|
|
jwh posted:Everything old is new again: I see your 4500-E, and raise you a Catalyst Virtual Switching System (VSS) 1440: http://cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9336/index.html inignot posted:That can be a misleading metric though, the whole point of the distributed switching cards is that intra slot switching doesn't have to touch the backplane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2007 21:24
|
|
|
I've just been put on a wireless project, and I'd be interested in hearing from people that are using any combination of 2106 controllers, lightweight AP's, or WCS. It's all very new to me, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2007 23:08
|
|
|
jwh posted:RSTP Issues Are there any other devices plugged into the 4500, and are you running RSTP-PVST? I've found some vendors don't support that, and ran into identical issues in the past, mainly with HP gear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2007 07:23
|
|
|
jwh posted:I've just been put on a wireless project, and I'd be interested in hearing from people that are using any combination of 2106 controllers, lightweight AP's, or WCS. Oh, stay away from anchoring and guest-tunneling on the 2106 if you plan on deploying it from the WCS until the next release.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2007 00:40
|
|
|
How do I go about telling if there are any security vulnerabilities in a given release of IOS? When I catch a notice on SANS/CERT/Bugtraq or whatever else, Cisco tends to have good documentation on affected releases and upgrade paths. But when I've just got a router or IOS version, I'm not sure how I would go about finding any security advisories or other errata that may affect the device.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2007 08:43
|
|
|
ior posted:I have quite some experience with all of these, and well, be careful about software upgrades on the WLC's, read the release notes. Other than that I'm not sure what to tell you, it works just fine when you have hammered out all the kinks. If you have any specific questions don't hesitate to ask. How is WCS at administering multiple client / sites from one installation? We have an interesting environment where we act as a managed services provider for a number of client organizations. Our current plan is to deploy a number of 2106 controllers and lightweight radios (estimates in the ~120 controllers, ~300 radios range), and administer the entire shootin' match from WCS. However, WCS is one of those things that isn't easy to get your mittens on unless you already have it, so we have a number of outstanding questions about it's operation. Most of those questions we hope to answer with a WCS evaluation and some pilot gear, which I hope will arrive sometime in the next few weeks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2007 16:41
|
|
|
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/products_security_advisories_listing.html There is a link on this page to the Product Alert Tool. You will need a CDC login to access the tool. It lets you subscribe to email notifications for specific product classes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2007 21:59
|
|
|
I'm wondering a bit about the Cisco 1811 / 1812. How useful are those extra 8 ports, really? It's called an "8 port switch", but I've seen configs where they're referred to as FastEthernet 2-9. What can they actually do? An ISP has one of those at our site, and they have connected FastEthernet 1 to one of the "switch" ports (and we connect to another one of them), is that really the only way to get any traffic out of those ports? With some vlans, that would get me a sort-of 8-port router (with 2 ports used up by a silly cable), but where 7 of them share a common 100Mbit. It would probably still be perfectly usable for what I would need it for (just need to separate some lans from the rest of our network with a separate router, due to private networks colliding between us and a client).
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2007 22:22
|
|
|
ionn posted:I'm wondering a bit about the Cisco 1811 / 1812. How useful are those extra 8 ports, really? They're the same as a HWIC-4ESW, or other EtherSwitch module, as far as I know. They're connected to the router via the bus, with layer-3 SVIs configured as part of IOS. So, you can and should use SVIs to do any sort of layer-3 on these ports. Burning Fa0/1 just to connect back into the switch module is kind of silly. In other words, you can't go into one of the switchports and type 'no switchport', but you can create up to eight vlans and give them SVIs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2007 22:59
|
|
|
ionn posted:I'm wondering a bit about the Cisco 1811 / 1812. How useful are those extra 8 ports, really? It's called an "8 port switch", but I've seen configs where they're referred to as FastEthernet 2-9. What can they actually do? Can you post what is silk screened on the card? The short answer is most of these expansion WICs are switchcards. You shouldn't have to physically cable the card to one of the routing ports though! You just create a BVI typically. edit: annd late.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2007 23:02
|
|
|
If at all possible, I definitely wouldn't just stick a cable between two ports like that, but one of our ISPs does that. We just upgraded from a 4Mbit DSL pipe to a 30Mbit fiber link, and they both had the same setup with a Cisco 1812 each: Fe0 to DSL modem / fiber converter, Fe1 to Fe2, we hook up our stuff on ports 3 to 9 (though we only use one port at the moment). Seems to me they have ports 2-9 just set up as a switch, completely separate from the rest of the router (which only uses 0 and 1). Silly, but that's how they do it. They also didn't know if their switchports were set to auto/auto or 100/full... If I can get two "proper" interfaces on Fe0 and 1, and the other 8 to only run untagged stuff (even sharing 100Mbit between them), 1811/1812 suits my needs just fine. I can even use the same setup for two different clients, so if I can get them both to pay for it, I'll get a couple of useful lab boxes as well. I think I can even sell them the idea of having a pair of them (with HSRP). How are they performance-wise? I only need fairly simple routing (~50 routes static and OSPF, no address translation or encryption, a couple of simple ACL's), and the wan links in question are under 10Mbit. If I were to fill it up with more stuff, how much would it be able to handle? I really don't need to be able to get wire-speed on 8 10Mbit interfaces all at once, either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2007 00:07
|
|
|
ok, possibly real dumb one. Is there any way I can "bridge" a T1 to Ethernet with any Cisco devices? I have an 1841, a pair of 2600s, and countless 1700s available; obviously I'd like to use the smallest one possible. The reason is that for what I do around my office, having a Linux/BSD box running as the firewall/router just seems more flexible and is certainly more familiar to me. All I want is to plug my T1 in to Serial0/0, plug my homebrewed PC/router in to FE0/0, set my T1 WAN IP on the PC/router's eth0, and have it work. The Cisco should be transparent as far as the PC is concerned. Can this be done and how hard is it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2007 01:20
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm sure you can rig up some awful, contrived bridging config to do that. http://www.cisco.com/pcgi-bin/search/search.pl?siteToSearch=cisco.com&searchPhrase=bridging&country=US&language=en&filter=p&search=Search
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2007 01:58
|
|
|
Selling some old Cisco routers and switches in SA Mart if anyone needs em. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2699559
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2007 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
How often do any of you guys configure loopback interfaces on your routers, and what do you tend to use them for?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2007 19:48
|
|