The Cisco Short Questions Thread v12.4.9(WTF)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cisco Short Questions Thread v12.4.9(WTF)

«‹›430 »

Gap In The Tooth: Aug 16, 2004

cheese-cube posted:

Awesome thanks for the info. Regarding IOS versions would IP Base be fine across all the gear or would you recommend IP Advanced on the routers?

That's an excellent point I completely forgot about Packet Tracer. Can you get Packet Tracer outside of being a registered academy student? I'll probably see if I can grab a copy from one of my work mates.

If you are going to get a 2600 router, make sure it has XM on it.

# ? Jul 26, 2013 10:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 00:11

Zuhzuhzombie!!: Apr 17, 2008; FACTS ARE A CONSPIRACY BY THE CAPITALIST OPRESSOR

Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:

I don't think so. If it were that easy, we'd just use a secondary /30 like we have with previous customers.

Anyway. I'm sure I'll have to deal with this in the morning so I'll let ya know if it's as crazy as it seems.

False alarm. He was asking for something fairly routine, just with awful grammar.

# ? Jul 26, 2013 14:37

skipdogg: Nov 29, 2004; Resident SRT-4 Expert

Can anyone tell me the difference between a WS-C3560X-48T-E and the WS-C3750X-48T-E besides the 3750's ability to stack? I'm looking for an iSCSI switch and can't find info about the switchfabric speed/blocking non blocking ports, etc. The 3750's are stupid expensive and if I can save a few bucks by going with a 3560 that would work too.

# ? Jul 26, 2013 16:53

ate shit on live tv: Feb 15, 2004; by Azathoth

AFAIK they have been identical since they were introduced with the obvious exception of stackability. Same throughput, same processor, same ASICs same everything. If a 3750 can do what you want, then so can a 3560.

# ? Jul 26, 2013 16:54

Zuhzuhzombie!!: Apr 17, 2008; FACTS ARE A CONSPIRACY BY THE CAPITALIST OPRESSOR

We just grabbed a load of 3560s for that very reason.

# ? Jul 26, 2013 16:57

ragzilla: Sep 9, 2005; don't ask me, i only work here

skipdogg posted:

Can anyone tell me the difference between a WS-C3560X-48T-E and the WS-C3750X-48T-E besides the 3750's ability to stack? I'm looking for an iSCSI switch and can't find info about the switchfabric speed/blocking non blocking ports, etc. The 3750's are stupid expensive and if I can save a few bucks by going with a 3560 that would work too.

You may want to look at 4948 if you can instead, unless the -X really improved the buffers, 3560/3750 are pretty abysmal for bursty traffic.

# ? Jul 26, 2013 21:02

skipdogg: Nov 29, 2004; Resident SRT-4 Expert

ragzilla posted:

You may want to look at 4948 if you can instead, unless the -X really improved the buffers, 3560/3750 are pretty abysmal for bursty traffic.

Hmmm... good idea. Cursory Google search shows the -X didn't improve the buffers.

# ? Jul 26, 2013 21:40

ate shit on live tv: Feb 15, 2004; by Azathoth

4948E is a pretty solid switch for Multicast/low latency, it may even be cheaper than the 3560-3750X.

# ? Jul 26, 2013 22:59

ruro: Apr 30, 2003

4948's are excellent. Never had a problem with them for our admittedly small iSCSI requirements.

# ? Jul 26, 2013 23:55

World z0r Z: May 26, 2013

Powercrazy posted:

I'll check our Nexus config tomorrow and let you know.

thanks.

We are going to reboot the entire 7010 on Tuesday to ensure the sysjumbo is getting processed correctly and after that upgrade to 6.2(2)

I'm hoping the reboot fixes this issue.

# ? Jul 27, 2013 01:38

Crackbone: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

Super simple (I think):

For a switch, the ip default-gateway command only affects the switch itself, and not attached devices, correct? Working with some CCNA dumps and one of them is claiming you can figure out where a host will route a packet based off the switch's default gateway, which makes no sense to me (especially considering you can have multiple vlans on a switch which pretty much means a single default gateway ain't gonna work anyway).

# ? Jul 29, 2013 01:32

Gap In The Tooth: Aug 16, 2004

Crackbone posted:

For a switch, the ip default-gateway command only affects the switch itself, and not attached devices, correct?

Correct. It only applies to traffic from the switch itself.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 01:39

BurgerQuest: Mar 17, 2009; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

For most purposes no... but! the 2960 can do it in a limited fashion.

http://blog.alwaysthenetwork.com/tutorials/2960s-can-route/

# ? Jul 29, 2013 02:27

Zuhzuhzombie!!: Apr 17, 2008; FACTS ARE A CONSPIRACY BY THE CAPITALIST OPRESSOR

So can you guys tell me anything about SORBS? They apparently black listed an entire /23 of ours a good decade before I got here and one single customer is really upset about it. I'm reading that SORBS is notoriously difficult to work with, but I'm reading their requirements for getting on their black list and the reasons have nothing in common for the use of the IP range today.

If I had to assume, since this was an old range we had for dial up, they black listed it due to spam. That range is now completely statically assigned for transportation circuits.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 18:34

chestnut santabag: Jul 3, 2006

Crackbone posted:

Super simple (I think):

For a switch, the ip default-gateway command only affects the switch itself, and not attached devices, correct? Working with some CCNA dumps and one of them is claiming you can figure out where a host will route a packet based off the switch's default gateway, which makes no sense to me (especially considering you can have multiple vlans on a switch which pretty much means a single default gateway ain't gonna work anyway).

"ip default-gateway" only applies when routing is disabled - "no ip routing"
If routing is enabled, then the command does nothing, even though its in the running-config.
This is fun to realise when you remotely enable routing on a switch and lose all connectivity due to the lack of a "ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0" statement.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 18:58

jwh: Jun 12, 2002

Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:

So can you guys tell me anything about SORBS? They apparently black listed an entire /23 of ours a good decade before I got here and one single customer is really upset about it. I'm reading that SORBS is notoriously difficult to work with, but I'm reading their requirements for getting on their black list and the reasons have nothing in common for the use of the IP range today.

I'll pray for you.

You don't work with SORBS. SORBS does whatever the gently caress they want, and you live with it, or have a mental breakdown.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 19:39

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

Gap In The Tooth posted:

That's exactly what the SRP is for, you get the Cisco brand name and reliability without the hassle of complex setup.

Most ISPs are dishing them out in NZ to terminate PPPoE FttH.

Me on the other hand, went for the Secure Router 520, one letter less for full IOSness

Ended up finding out where all the 'features' of my SRP went.

Admin console only works in IE. Which is a problem where I work since we don't have a single windows machine in the whole drat building. Its all lunix and macs.

Well and the bosses laptop fortuantely. I jumped onto his laptop to fix an issue he was having with our VPN and blammo a huge section of previously missing menu items and poo poo suddenly appears.

This incompatibility with firefox/cisco/etc isn't even documented by the way. Very very sloppy work from cisco/linksys. Shame, its an other wise rock solid unit.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 19:58

Herv: Mar 24, 2005; Soiled Meat

While that does suck, can't you get Parallels or a similar product so you can manage the unit?

# ? Jul 29, 2013 21:28

Crackbone: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

chestnut santabag posted:

"ip default-gateway" only applies when routing is disabled - "no ip routing"
If routing is enabled, then the command does nothing, even though its in the running-config.
This is fun to realise when you remotely enable routing on a switch and lose all connectivity due to the lack of a "ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0" statement.

Interesting. I would assume for the purposes of the ccna that you'd ignore that though - the only place study materials talk about ip default gateway on a switch is for remote management purposes.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 22:08

Herv: Mar 24, 2005; Soiled Meat

Crackbone posted:

Interesting. I would assume for the purposes of the ccna that you'd ignore that though - the only place study materials talk about ip default gateway on a switch is for remote management purposes.

Its been forever but doesn't the CCNA focus on layer 2 switching?

# ? Jul 29, 2013 22:17

GOOCHY: Sep 17, 2003; In an interstellar burst I'm back to save the universe!

Herv posted:

Its been forever but doesn't the CCNA focus on layer 2 switching?

Yeah, it's just layer two on the CCNA.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 22:44

psydude: Apr 1, 2008

That may be changing with the new one, though, since layer 3 switching is all the rage.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 22:45

Crackbone: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

Herv posted:

Its been forever but doesn't the CCNA focus on layer 2 switching?

Well, yeah, that's kind of my point. Switches (in test materials) are very clearly laid out as layer 2 devices that don't touch layer 3 at all, with the one exception of remote management of said switches. Layer 3 switches are definitely not part of the exam.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 22:58

World z0r Z: May 26, 2013

does anyone have any experience with IOS-XE licensing?

I'm having issues with an ASR-1000.

It appears the licenses are on the system permanently, I've set to boot to adventerprise services. I have ipsec config lines in the config, but the ipsec feature says "enabled - no" in the license output.

Goddamn all these licenses... I thought NX-OS was bad.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 23:20

Filthy Lucre: Feb 27, 2006

Herv posted:

Its been forever but doesn't the CCNA focus on layer 2 switching?

I had EIGRP questions/troubleshooting when I took mine last year.

# ? Jul 29, 2013 23:26

GOOCHY: Sep 17, 2003; In an interstellar burst I'm back to save the universe!

Filthy Lucre posted:

I had EIGRP questions/troubleshooting when I took mine last year.

He's talking about just switching content on the CCNA. EIGRP is covered under dynamic routing protocols.

# ? Jul 30, 2013 00:33

DeNofa: Aug 25, 2009; WILL AMOUNT TO NOTHING IN LIFE.

World z0r Z posted:

does anyone have any experience with IOS-XE licensing?

I'm having issues with an ASR-1000.

It appears the licenses are on the system permanently, I've set to boot to adventerprise services. I have ipsec config lines in the config, but the ipsec feature says "enabled - no" in the license output.

Goddamn all these licenses... I thought NX-OS was bad.

Let's see a "sh license"

Real answer: it's an RTU license, just steal it

# ? Jul 30, 2013 00:51

World z0r Z: May 26, 2013

it's an airgapped network... no (approved) way to get output.

We are on the latest universal k9 image and the only license option I can set is to boot to advipservices, adventerprise, ipbase.

So I assume I boot to one of these and just enable the features I need in config by using those specific config attributes?

Another weird thing is that I can "interface Vlan (1-4094)" and it will show me the command when I ? it out but I cannot set it. On the ASR I can only sset dot1q on the subinterfaces, why even show me the command for an SVI Cisco?

WHy?

# ? Jul 30, 2013 01:25

DeNofa: Aug 25, 2009; WILL AMOUNT TO NOTHING IN LIFE.

World z0r Z posted:

it's an airgapped network... no (approved) way to get output.

We are on the latest universal k9 image and the only license option I can set is to boot to advipservices, adventerprise, ipbase.

So I assume I boot to one of these and just enable the features I need in config by using those specific config attributes?

Another weird thing is that I can "interface Vlan (1-4094)" and it will show me the command when I ? it out but I cannot set it. On the ASR I can only sset dot1q on the subinterfaces, why even show me the command for an SVI Cisco?

WHy?

As long as the IPsec license says "right to use" somewhere you should be good. For the SVI question, googling "Cisco asr layer 2" should shed some light. For some reason my phone is being goofy and won't let me search properly.

# ? Jul 30, 2013 06:44

underlig: Sep 13, 2007

I have a question about configration archiving,

Apparently most of our switches has archiving set up. On some of them i can do "sh archive" and it lists the files correctly from the tftp server, but on some it doesn't display any files currently on the tftp. Therefore the "next archive file will be named ... -1" when in reality there are three previous configs so it should be named -4 instead.

Can i somehow force the switch to refresh information from the tftp server?

Most of the switches has uptimes over three years and i thought i could spend some time archiving the configs and reboot them one weekend.

# ? Jul 30, 2013 10:11

wolrah: May 8, 2006; what?

TFTP has no "list directory" functionality so unless the switches are checking for every previous numbered file (which should show up pretty obviously in your TFTP logs) the archive number is likely stored somewhere in the switch.

# ? Jul 30, 2013 20:45

World z0r Z: May 26, 2013

DeNofa posted:

As long as the IPsec license says "right to use" somewhere you should be good. For the SVI question, googling "Cisco asr layer 2" should shed some light. For some reason my phone is being goofy and won't let me search properly.

Yeah I decided to ignore the SVI and HSRP recommendation of the other engineer and looked up a different solution. We are using manual vlan mapping to a GEC bundle with a primary and secondary link.

works well... we also see "ipsec" as "enabled - yes" after defining mode ipsec on an interface.

# ? Jul 30, 2013 23:52

tortilla_chip: Jun 13, 2007; k-partite

Has anyone used an ISR with cellular interfaces? I'm specifically interested in the 819, hoping to do dual 4G (active/standby is fine).

# ? Jul 31, 2013 21:39

ior: Nov 21, 2003; What's a fuckass?

tortilla_chip posted:

Has anyone used an ISR with cellular interfaces? I'm specifically interested in the 819, hoping to do dual 4G (active/standby is fine).

I have a 819 with 4G, sweet little box. Got 70/40Mbits on it the other day. Never tried the dual-sim thing but I am told that a failover over takes a while (30+ seconds).

# ? Jul 31, 2013 22:14

jwh: Jun 12, 2002

The cell interfaces config up kinda weird. I never liked that aspect.

Other than that, they seem to just work. Nice little routers.

# ? Jul 31, 2013 23:52

Herv: Mar 24, 2005; Soiled Meat

Huh, I'm trying to bring up a GRE tunnel on a 6500 that once had a VPN module, now removed, and getting ISAKMP errors.

All the old config for the VPN module was removed before pulling it. This switch was doing software engine before the VPN module was used. I... I am at a total loss.

code:

Debugging shows:
Jul 31 19:16:18: ISAKMP: Unable to allocate IKE SA

IKE is complaining about no crypto engine looks like, 
but the software engine is there as I would expect:
c6506#sh cry engine conf

        crypto engine name:  Cisco VPN Software Implementation
        crypto engine type:  software
             serial number:  0044AD57
       crypto engine state:  installed
     crypto engine in slot:  N/A
                  platform:  Cisco Software Crypto Engine

   Crypto Adjacency Counts:
                Lock Count:  0
              Unlock Count:  0
        crypto lib version:  18.0.0

So far I have toggled the 'crypto engine software ipsec' global setting, shows up when disabled.

Stopped and started ISAKMP.

Changed IOS versions, even though the original one was using the software engine prior to the VPN module usage.

Currently running 'Cisco IOS Software, s72033_rp Software (s72033_rp-ADVENTERPRISEK9_WAN-M), Version 12.2(33)SXI1, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc3)' for IOS.

Doing a show run | inc crypto brings back no surprises, with an | inc slot coming back null (VPN module configs).

I really want to avoid booting a default config, what am I missing here?

I hope its something stupid, thanks.

# ? Aug 1, 2013 00:31