collapse

Promotion

Search


User Info

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - adecisco

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Security / Re: CISCO ISE with Local Web Authentication
« on: June 24, 2015, 11:16:30 PM »
This is just for research purpose nothing more.

Thanks,

2
Security / CISCO ISE with Local Web Authentication
« on: June 19, 2015, 12:58:44 AM »
Hi there is there any video on Local Web Authentication (LWA) on switch rather than WLC I can watch. Or if you have valid documentation link it will be appreciated.

Thanks,

3
Voice (Collaboration) / Call conferencing
« on: October 25, 2014, 01:56:41 PM »
Which of Cisco phone support up to 10 conference call. And how can one ensure a single phone can accept 10 calls from external (E1) line to a single conferencing phone..

Thanks,

4
Routing and Switching / Re: MTU MANIPULATION ISSUES NEED YOUR GUIDE
« on: October 11, 2014, 05:10:57 AM »
Yeah you are right at that brother.. ;)

5
Routing and Switching / Re: MTU MANIPULATION ISSUES NEED YOUR GUIDE
« on: October 09, 2014, 03:13:03 AM »
After playing around on this for a while my final submission is this rule of thumb for the issues are these:

1. MTU interface is the total MTU of the frame which include MPLS MTU plus IP MTU.

2. MPLS MTU is use to ensure that the total MPLS packet size will not exceed the configured MPLS MTU. This situation is important when you have restriction configuring the ETHERNET MTU. And this include IP MTU.

3. IP MTU is the total size require for IP packet before adding MPLS MTU.

Therefore:

ETHERNET MTU = ETHERNET HEADER + TAIL +MPLS MTU + IP MTU

MPLS MTU = MPLS HEADER + TAIL + IP MTU

IP MTU = IP HEADER AND THE REST..

Hope this clears thing..but if you have contrary opinion I will appreciate your input..all is for the learning..

Thanks,

6
Routing and Switching / Re: AToM not passing traffic even with vc up.
« on: October 08, 2014, 01:56:10 AM »
It turn out that the VC is working perfectly but the problem was with the internet..I decided to use another internet source at one remote end and voila everything start working as planned..

Thanks,

7
Routing and Switching / Re: AToM not passing traffic even with vc up.
« on: September 10, 2014, 03:37:34 AM »
Hello,

I was latter discovered that the problem was with mikrotic router along the path and some link problem could be an issues as well.

But here is a new issues..after I changed the router I have the following:

ping mpls pseudowire 172.27.11.66 333 reply mode router-alert
Sending 5, 100-byte MPLS Echos to 172.27.11.66,
     timeout is 2 seconds, send interval is 0 msec:

Codes: '!' - success, 'Q' - request not sent, '.' - timeout,
  'L' - labeled output interface, 'B' - unlabeled output interface,
  'D' - DS Map mismatch, 'F' - no FEC mapping, 'f' - FEC mismatch,
  'M' - malformed request, 'm' - unsupported tlvs, 'N' - no label entry,
  'P' - no rx intf label prot, 'p' - premature termination of LSP,
  'R' - transit router, 'I' - unknown upstream index,
  'X' - unknown return code, 'x' - return code 0

Type escape sequence to abort.
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 4/4/4 ms

showing pseudowire is perfect.

But on what situation cause internet connection to be extremely slow even though bandwidth is not restricted?
Everything is fine now but internet browsing through the l2vpn is extremely slow.

Any suggested help will be appreciated.

Thanks,

8
Other / HUAWEI hardware to Cisco hardware conversion.
« on: September 05, 2014, 04:01:25 AM »
Anybody have idea about how to go about the conversion huawei to cisco hardware?

Thanks,

9
Routing and Switching / AToM not passing traffic even with vc up.
« on: July 09, 2014, 06:43:40 AM »
Dear Community member,

I need you to assist to suggest possible reason for the following issues in the attached diagram.

1. IGP is OSPF

2. mpls is enable across the network.

3. reachability is confirm between the two end cisco router where AToM config is turn on.

4. The environment is mixture of cisco router and mikrotic as depicted in the diagram.

The following are the show command I got but could not find what may be the possible issues with the setup...

=======================================

RT_ATOM_1#ping mpls pseudowire 172.27.11.254 10 reply mode router-alert
Sending 5, 100-byte MPLS Echos to 172.27.11.254,
     timeout is 2 seconds, send interval is 0 msec:

Codes: '!' - success, 'Q' - request not sent, '.' - timeout,
  'L' - labeled output interface, 'B' - unlabeled output interface,
  'D' - DS Map mismatch, 'F' - no FEC mapping, 'f' - FEC mismatch,
  'M' - malformed request, 'm' - unsupported tlvs, 'N' - no label entry,
  'P' - no rx intf label prot, 'p' - premature termination of LSP,
  'R' - transit router, 'I' - unknown upstream index,
  'X' - unknown return code, 'x' - return code 0

Type escape sequence to abort.

*Jul  9 10:22:23.227: ATOM-disposition: incoming tag 117441733 in Fa0/0, size 108, packet dropped, Inband Control packet dropped.
*Jul  9 10:22:25.103: ATOM-disposition: incoming tag 117441733 in Fa0/0, size 108, packet dropped, Inband Control packet dropped.
*Jul  9 10:22:27.071: ATOM-disposition: incoming tag 117441733 in Fa0/0, size 108, packet dropped, Inband Control packet dropped.
*Jul  9 10:22:28.939: ATOM-disposition: incoming tag 117441733 in Fa0/0, size 108, packet dropped, Inband Control packet dropped.
*Jul  9 10:22:30.927: ATOM-disposition: incoming tag 117441733 in Fa0/0, size 108, packet dropped, Inband Control packet dropped.
Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)

=======================================================================
RT_ATOM_1#sho mpls l2transport vc 10 detail
Local interface: Fa8 up, line protocol up, Ethernet up
  Destination address: 172.27.11.254, VC ID: 10, VC status: up
    Output interface: Gi0, imposed label stack {142090 1221}
    Preferred path: not configured
    Default path: active
    Next hop: 172.27.1.1
  Create time: 00:25:32, last status change time: 00:19:08
  Signaling protocol: LDP, peer 172.27.11.254:0 up
    Targeted Hello: 172.27.11.252(LDP Id) -> 172.27.11.254
    Status TLV support (local/remote)   : enabled/not supported
      Label/status state machine        : established, LruRru
      Last local dataplane   status rcvd: no fault
      Last local SSS circuit status rcvd: no fault
      Last local SSS circuit status sent: no fault
      Last local  LDP TLV    status sent: no fault
      Last remote LDP TLV    status rcvd: not sent
    MPLS VC labels: local 1223, remote 1221
    Group ID: local 0, remote 0
    MTU: local 1500, remote 1500
    Remote interface description:
  Sequencing: receive disabled, send disabled
  VC statistics:
    packet totals: receive 0, send 4318
    byte totals:   receive 0, send 474880
    packet drops:  receive 0, seq error 0, send 0
=============================================================================
RT_ATOM_1#sho mpls l2transport binding
  Destination Address: 172.27.11.254,  VC ID: 10
    Local Label:  1223
        Cbit: 1,    VC Type: Ethernet,    GroupID: 0
        MTU: 1500,   Interface Desc: n/a
        VCCV: CC Type: CW [1], RA [2]
              CV Type: LSPV [2]
    Remote Label: 1221
        Cbit: 1,    VC Type: Ethernet,    GroupID: 0
        MTU: 1500,   Interface Desc: n/a
        VCCV: CC Type: CW [1], RA [2]
              CV Type: LSPV [2]
===========================================================================

RT_ATOM_1#sho mpls forwarding-table | i l2
1223       No Label   l2ckt(10)        0             Fa8        point2point

===========================================================================

RT_ATOM_2#sho mpls l2transport vc 10 detail
Local interface: Fa0/1 up, line protocol up, Ethernet up
  Destination address: 172.27.11.252, VC ID: 10, VC status: up
    Next hop: 172.27.14.25
    Output interface: Fa0/0, imposed label stack {550 1223}
  Create time: 00:11:53, last status change time: 00:08:18
  Signaling protocol: LDP, peer 172.27.11.252:0 up
    MPLS VC labels: local 1221, remote 1223
    Group ID: local 0, remote 0
    MTU: local 1500, remote 1500
    Remote interface description:
  Sequencing: receive disabled, send disabled
  VC statistics:
    packet totals: receive 2446, send 1553
    byte totals:   receive 224196, send 213523
    packet drops:  receive 15, seq error 0, send 0

==============================================================

RT_ATOM_1#sho mpls l2transport binding 10
  Destination Address: 172.27.11.254,  VC ID: 10
    Local Label:  1223
        Cbit: 1,    VC Type: Ethernet,    GroupID: 0
        MTU: 1500,   Interface Desc: n/a
        VCCV: CC Type: CW [1], RA [2]
              CV Type: LSPV [2]
    Remote Label: 1221
        Cbit: 1,    VC Type: Ethernet,    GroupID: 0
        MTU: 1500,   Interface Desc: n/a
        VCCV: CC Type: CW [1], RA [2]
              CV Type: LSPV [2]
yourname#
=====================================================
RT_ATOM_2#sho mpls l2transport binding 10
  Destination Address: 172.27.11.252,  VC ID: 10
    Local Label:  1221
        Cbit: 1,    VC Type: Ethernet,    GroupID: 0
        MTU: 1500,   Interface Desc: n/a
        VCCV: CC Type: CW [1], RA [2]
              CV Type: LSPV [2]
    Remote Label: 1223
        Cbit: 1,    VC Type: Ethernet,    GroupID: 0
        MTU: 1500,   Interface Desc: n/a
        VCCV: CC Type: CW [1], RA [2]
              CV Type: LSPV [2]

===========================================================

Looking at output of command sho mpls l2transport vc 10 detail it can be observed that ATOM_2 is sending and receiving packet but that is not the case for ATOM_1

What could be wrong with this scenario?

Your input will be appreciated.

Regards,

10
Security / INVALID SWITCH CONFIG-NAC AGENT LOG
« on: May 19, 2014, 07:15:39 PM »
Dear Team,

What can be made of this issues. You input will be appreciated.

Regards,

11
Security / Re: EMPTY DASHBOARD
« on: April 25, 2014, 06:50:56 PM »
Services has been restarted and in case that was not enough Primary AM was reloaded...yet no way..I intend applying the latest patches..

12
Security / Re: EMPTY DASHBOARD
« on: April 24, 2014, 07:16:05 AM »
Attached is my experience I don't think this is browser issues.

13
Security / EMPTY DASHBOARD
« on: April 22, 2014, 09:35:01 AM »
Has anyone experience a scenario where primary admin node dashboard was empty? What could be the cause? For your info the deployment is still working fine? Could it be that the information is purge by ISE?

14
Security / Re: dhcp issues with wlc and ISE
« on: April 10, 2014, 02:03:02 AM »
A new observation came up as we try to figure out where the problem is. We try to flatten the network by creating of vlan for all the ssid and we were able to make it to work.

DHCP working fine. Has anyone try wireless dot1x with different ssid in different vlan without issues with DHCP?


15
Security / Re: dhcp issues with wlc and ISE
« on: April 08, 2014, 01:50:57 AM »
We ensure dhcp proxy is off and IP dhcp helper is configured on the switch vlan.

Where else can one look?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal