• RELEVANCY SCORE 2.73

    DB:2.73:Routing Loop a1






    There is a routing loop then trying to access this IP,

    199.7.83.42

    Anybody know who to contact? corbin maybe?

    [shaw]moderator

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.73

    DB:2.73:Poor Bandwicth [Edited] s3






    WIn 7 Ultimate, 8 GB, i7 cpu. FIOS 25/15. Freshly rebooted router. I get routinely no more than 0.384 MBS DOWNLOAD using Speedtest from Consolidated Communications in the Pittsburgh peering center. Oddly, I get about 14 MBS UPLOAD. I get normal bandwidth (30/15)from Pair Networks. I also get 30/20 from the FIOS server. If I point Speedtest to State College, I actually get better results. If I use Weston WV it is 2.3 DL and 28.2 UP, another odd result. Columbus OH, 30/20.

    There is clearly something wrong in the routing instructions at the local peering center. I cannot get Verizon to admit there is a problem.

    Under the current routing I cannot watch video from Amazon. Indeed, if I ping AMazon on just a regular ping.exe function, the ping request times out.

    There is something badly wrong and I don't know what to do. I have saved speedtest results from multiple sesions if anyone cares to look at the data.

    Could anyone tell me how to escalate this without taking all week to work my way up . Also, the VZ Home Agent had not suggestions. I think I am optmimally configured here.

    Thank you.







    Solved!
    Go to Solution.

    DB:2.73:Poor Bandwicth [Edited] s3


    I have exactly the same result. As noted above I flushed the DNS cache and had some postiiver results but now it has no effect. Any other suggestions from the moderator. I have data from many runs confirming that it is the Consolidated Communications pairing center that is limiting the bandwith. I have great connection results from many other peering centers. Therefore, I do not understand how it could be rellated to any pc local configuration. Any guidance welcome.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.73

    DB:2.73:Bgp Full Mesh And Ruote Reflectors All Together On Same Router dk





    Hi all,

    We have three routers with full mesh ibgp peering with full routing table. We Are adding the new route reflectors on same as for all routers but we have to avoid the disruption of routing table and garant service. The question is: can I use rr and full mesh all together adding the rr peering on all full mesh routers ?

    Thanks

    Isacco

    Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPad App

    DB:2.73:Bgp Full Mesh And Ruote Reflectors All Together On Same Router dk


    Hello Isacco,

    yes you can the reflected advertisements will not be preferred over the direct advertisements exchanged over the direct iBGP sessions between the three routers, as the first ones have BGP cluster-list attribute set.

    Hope to help

    Giuseppe

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.71

    DB:2.71:Hack Shaw Assist. 19



    I've been told, at last count, 11 times to use the link nxr.shaw.ca to rid my browsers of Shaw butting with with a lame "assist" scam.

    Shaw - there are hundreds of such rude interruptions available by Binging it.

    AGAIN. I use that silly tool eleven times, and every 2 weeks, Shaw worms its way back.

    Another support suggested I use Google's DNS! I value my privacy - why should I give it up to Google so I can get on with browsing without Shaw peering over my shoulder?

    If I wanted ';suggestions' from a typo in the URL, I'd use a built in one. Who the Hades is Shaw to over-ride my settings and install itself instead of what I want?

    What can YOU do Dear Support to ensure that Shaw.Assist is permanently stopped from invading my browsers?

    Perhaps Shaw might create a short script that would run at browser boot to disable Shaw.Assist by going to nxr.shaw.ca all he time.

    Pahlease!!! get it stopped - as promised.

    j

    DB:2.71:Hack Shaw Assist. 19


    pveronneau (Employee)

    Wow! Never heard of NXR free caches. I'll give them a try and see if they'll stop Shaw redirect.

    It will take about 2 weeks before I'll know because I did the removal from Shaw.assist (nxr.shaw.ca) again but that, like the earth, is temporary I'll wait until Shaw moves in again in the next week or two, then without removal, try those in the list.

    Private J

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.69

    DB:2.69:Shaw Secure x7



    Hi cant download shaw secure, page will not load

    DB:2.69:Shaw Secure x7


    Hi c.burton

    Were you able to get this issue resolved?

    Let me know.

    Thanks

    Ali

    Community Moderator

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.67

    DB:2.67:Advertise Routing Protocol From Glbp Virtual Address 7d



    I have a setup with 2 routers at each site on individual T1 links that I am running an IGP (eigrp) across and then using GLBP on the inside interfaces for load-balancing / fail over. When I am advertising the dynamic routing protocol into the core-switch at each location, the switches are peering with the physical address of the inside interface, and not the GLBP virtual address. I need to force this, or I guess I could just have the core switch default-route to the GLBP address.

    One site is eigrp into the core, the other site I am redistributing eigrip into rip (hp switch as the core).

    Any suggestions?

    DB:2.67:Advertise Routing Protocol From Glbp Virtual Address 7d


    Jon,

    Thanks for the advice. I think I was coming to this conclusion. Let me think about this for another day, and i'll get back with either points or more questions.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.66

    DB:2.66:Ipv6 Ebgp Peering 3d



    dealt with IPv4 and ipv6 eBGP peering, our IPv6 neighbor kept falling from time to time,about 5mins. then gets disconnected again. our IPV4 stays up.

     

    any professional insights.

    DB:2.66:Ipv6 Ebgp Peering 3d


    dealt with IPv4 and ipv6 eBGP peering, our IPv6 neighbor kept falling from time to time,about 5mins. then gets disconnected again. our IPV4 stays up.

     

    any professional insights.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.66

    DB:2.66:Salmon Arm And The Supposed "Fixes" d9



    I've Been having 250ms+ and less then 56k modems speeds on BB50 and i've replaced the cable cord and modem's and using Cat6 ethernet and using multiple computers and OS's and it started when shaw took over in mid 2013 and tried to contact other ISP's but there either Bankrupt or Bought out by shaw or say that there politically lobbed by shaw to "Limit" there services in Salmon Arm ,i've tried contacting Shaw multiple times and getting multiple "Possibilities" but no Solutions ,Even Shaw's own "Field Tech's" says its not my end but a problem with the Routing and Saturation on Shaw's "Network" so im wondering if Shaw have the "Ability" to "Fix" the problems that been going on?

    DB:2.66:Salmon Arm And The Supposed "Fixes" d9


    Hi there jardek12,

    I will reply back to your direct message for further troubleshooting as it doesn't look like we got to the bottom of this last night.

    Cheers,

    Brayden

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.65

    DB:2.65:No Help From Shaw :( cf



    I had contacted Shaw direct to inquire about obtaining cable/satellite TV on behalf of my elderly mother who resides in a remote area of Manitoba. I had explained to Shaw that her previous TV connection was by way of her antennae and unfortunately the recepiton was extremely poor. Shaw Direct then connected her with satellite service. Within 2 weeks of obtaining shaw's connection I heard from one of my mothers neighbors that she should be receiving her connection for free, as she was only receiving 5 channels (all local with the exception of City TV). I then conntaced Shaw to find out why my mother would have to be paying for the basic channel service when the Free channels were available (referred to as LTSS). Shaw then informed me of this program, LTSS and had send me an application for my mother to complete. I received the application and submitted it in on her behalf. Within 3 days my mother received a phone call from Shaw Direct stating she was ineligible because she has already been receiving cable/satellite service (keep in mind the service she was connected to was Shaw Direct and had only been connected for 2 weeks). When I contacted Shaw asking why she was declined this free service they blamed it on the CRTC. Also they said if I would have asked the proper questions when making my inquiry they would have determined her eligibility. Needless to say I am extremely dissappointed with Shaw and their lack on compassion based on this situation. I feel like I was improperly notified that this service was available and I was very specific when making my inquiry initially that she was coming off an antennae service and resides in a remote part of Manitoba, being a Sr. and wanting the least expensive program as she really only watches two channels. At this point Shaw is not willing to assist and basically is saying that the only way for her to obtain service under the LTSS program is to cancel her current service with Shaw. Also, this entire process has only been less than three weeks as she hasn't even received her first Shaw bill. Sorry Shaw, I'm very dissappointed in you.

    DB:2.65:No Help From Shaw :( cf


    Thank goodness for employees like Donovon who saved the day for my mother. Thank you so much for taking the time to listen to our concerns and to come through in the end. We are so pleased and so appreciative. Thank you so much for all your help, we truly appreciate it.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.64

    DB:2.64:Bgp - Seperating Own Routes 1j



    Hi

    we are going to be peering with an ISP, and they want us to take the Full BGP internet routing table,

    I am going to be using two Cat6500 for this that also server other puroposes in routing in my private networks,

    what is the best way to keep the bgp routes seperate from my own routes, f.e. should I run VRF lite to and put all my routes into an VRF and then have the internet routing table as the global table,

    or what is generaly done in situationes like this ?

    Regards

    Arni

    DB:2.64:Bgp - Seperating Own Routes 1j


    Hello,

    in principle it would be enough NOT to configure redistribution between BGP and IGP (which is never the best idea). IP routing protocols are like "ships in the night" - they don´t see each otherunless you configure redistribution.

    In addition I would apply the proper inbound and outbound filters to be sure an ISP failure/error will not get you in trouble. An example configuration could look like this:

    interface Ethernet0/1

    description to ISP

    ip address 1.4.5.2 255.255.255.252

    router bgp 65000

    network 1.1.0.0 mask 255.255.0.0

    neighbor 1.4.5.1 remote-as 1 !replace with ISP AS

    neighbor 1.4.5.1 prefix-list NoTrash in

    neighbor 1.4.5.1 filter-list 1 out

    neighbor 1.4.5.1 maximum-prefix 300000

    no auto-summary

    ip as-path access-list 1 permit ^$

    ip prefix-list NoTrash deny 192.168.0.0/16 le 32

    ip prefix-list NoTrash deny 172.16.0.0/12 le 32

    ip prefix-list NoTrash deny 10.0.0.0/8 le 32

    ip prefix-list NoTrash deny 1.1.0.0/16 le 32

    ip prefix-list NoTrash permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 24

    ip route 1.1.0.0 255.255.0.0 Null 0 250

    This assumes you want to announce 1.1.0.0/16 to the ISP as your official IP addresses. You need of course to adjust interfaces, IP addresses ans AS numbers.

    Hope this helps! PLease rate all posts.

    Regards, Martin

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.60

    DB:2.60:Certain Addresses Not Resolving jz



    Hello

    I hope someone can help here because shaw are not able to help.

    I have a ISP hosted mail server which I access successfully on Shaw public wifi, and other networks, but not with shaw cable through wifi since 1 week ago.

    Steps taken

    * usual device restarts/resets

    * new static dns addresses enter into router config

    * flush and reset of old shaw router

    * new shaw router installed

    * test using various tools to ping the mail server from around the world - with success

    * even shaw can ping the mail server from their office.

    In their words, they have run out of solutions and their tests show circular routing hence the timeouts.

    Any ideas/workarounds?

    Thanks

    DB:2.60:Certain Addresses Not Resolving jz


    As soon as I posted this, it started working. But I will repost if it recurs.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.58

    DB:2.58:Ebgp Load Balancing Across 2 As For Same Set Of Routes 7m



    This is my topology

    I have Router A in AS 10   having an EBGP peering with   Router B(AS20) and Router C(AS 30). They are having EBGP peering on WAN interfaces .

    I am injecting  10.0.0.0/8 network  from  Router B and Router C.I am seeing those routes inthe bgp table of  Router A being learned from  Router B C.

    I am  trying to achieve load balaning for the  outgoing traffic  from Rotuer A to the 10.0.0.0/8 ie  I should see the 10.0.0.0/8 network not only in the  BGP table ,but also in the routing  table so that  traffic get load balanced .I have used "maximum paths" command in  router A.

    Is this possible to achieve ???

    Cheers

    Ajai

    DB:2.58:Ebgp Load Balancing Across 2 As For Same Set Of Routes 7m


    Hello Ajai,

    on router A is needed an hidden command because the peer AS on the two possible paths is different.

    bgp bestpath as-path multipath-relax

    you still need the maximum-paths command

    note that in real world an  IP prefix is originated by a single AS number, in your lab 10/8 appears as generated by AS 2 and AS 3. However, it is a valid setup for testing this feature.

    Hope to help

    Giuseppe

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.56

    DB:2.56:Shaw Blacklist: Connection Rejected Due To Poor Reputation z3



    Hi,

    we are a Shaw business customer and use Shaw email relay ("shawmail.vc.shawcable.net,shawmail.vn.shawcable.net,shawmail.vf.shawcable.net") server with MS Exchange Server on premise

    it happened that Shaw blacklist us (Shaw directly not "Spamhaus DBL" or "BARRACUDA" or other lists)

    Last time it took 5 hours to to get us of Shaw list (if we not call in it would happen automatically after 6pm (PST)

    Shaw claimed:
    The blacklisting occurred because of a recipient flagging an email(s) from originating from your IP as spam. There was also some detection of a virus infection accompanying an email, as this was reported twice.

    No further details were provided so we didn't had much of a details to investigate (beside a general scan for virus)

    BTW Shaw suggest to use webmail in the meantime which is a joke consider we use our own domain (not @shaw.ca)

    My questions:
    How can we ask the first level help-desk on the phone to check if we are SHAW blacklisted? (Does the Shaw helpdesk has info about this)Why are we (client who got blacklisted) not notified / informant about this?how can we get more details (detail report) why we got blacklisted?How fast we can get off the Shaw blacklist?

    DB:2.56:Shaw Blacklist: Connection Rejected Due To Poor Reputation z3


    Hi,

    As we currently support residential customers on the forums here, please contact the Business Support department using the following methods:

    http://www.shaw.ca/Contact-Us/business/

    Phone - Contact a Shaw Customer Representative by phone 24 hours a day.

    Sales Customer Care/Tech support: 1-877-742-9249

    Email: technicalsupport@shawbusiness.ca

    Thank you,

    Ali

    Community Moderator

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.56

    DB:2.56:Bgp Multihoming Fail-Over Problem xm



    I have two routers with two ISP connections(dual router multihoming configurations).

    RT#1 EBGP peering between ISP#1 with connected serial interface, also another #2 is same.

    RT#1 and RT#2 has IBGP peering with their Ethernet interfaces.

    RT#1 BGP configuration below(RT#2 = vice versa);

    #router bgp my_AS

    #neighbor ips#1

    #neighbor RT#2

    #network my_network

    #...

    #ip route (my_network) null0

    Problem; I cannot reach the another outside network (in routing table RT#1's) when failed RT#1's ethernet cables

    I think network advertising configuration's might be wrong.

    DB:2.56:Bgp Multihoming Fail-Over Problem xm


    You are advertising your networks from both routers as long as

    the serial interfaces and eBGP sessions are up.

    When the ethernet of the one router fails,

    both routers continue advertising your networks to the rest of the world.

    Even if you manage to switch your outbound traffic towards the available router,

    some of your inbound traffic will return from the serial of the router whose ethernet is faulty.

    This inbound traffic will be sent to null0 by the isolated router.

    One solution is to keep your ethernets working ;-)

    Another one is to rely on your IGP to choose the networks to be advertised,

    and not advertise them statically at all times. There are pros and cons.

    M.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.55

    DB:2.55:Shaw Cable sz



    Is shaw cable down as mine just quit working

    DB:2.55:Shaw Cable sz


    Hi @never

    If you are in North Edmonton we have posted a service alert here: [Resolved] Edmonton - Service Interruption (Areas affected: North Edmonton, Callingwood)

    Please check that for updates. Technicians are investigating.

    Thank you

    Ali | Shaw Community Moderator

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.54

    DB:2.54:What A Traffic Can Forward Via Vpc Peerlink ? j7



    Hello

    I have N7K 2 box and am create 2 TenG for vPC peering between box  I want to know what a traffic can forward via vPC peerlink ?

    can forward unicast packet or not ? or can run routing via this link or not ? or only keepalive packet ?

    Thank you.

    DB:2.54:What A Traffic Can Forward Via Vpc Peerlink ? j7


    Hi,

    Here is good document to read.  It goes over VPC design in layer-2 and layer-3 scenarios.

    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9670/design_guide_c07-625857.pdf

    HTH

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.53

    DB:2.53:Poor Service k1



    Menu button on remote doesnt work, Guide doesnt work, time on digital has changed to military, On Demand not working, Shaw rep didnt call me back

    DB:2.53:Poor Service k1


    Please update the status of my cable service and internet.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.51

    DB:2.51:Shaw Go Wifi cc



    Is Shaw secure provided on Shaw Go WIFI?

    DB:2.51:Shaw Go Wifi cc


    What do you mean?

    Can you get updates when using the Shaw Go WiFi? Yes, any internet connection will do

    Can you install it? You have to use your Online Customer Care ID/account, but yes, any internet connection will work

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.51

    DB:2.51:Bgp Mulihoming aj



    Hello,

    Trying to setup eBGP with two providers. I would like to use one for primary internet access and the other one to primarily only reach networks part of the second peer. For example only access Comcast users using Comcast peering.

    Normal

    So peer A internet in and out

    peer B only their network

    Failure

    if peer A fails use peer b for both b's network and internet and vise versa with peer B.

    Here is my question. If peer B and A are also peering with let's say peer G (exp google), how can we make peer G use peer A instead of peer B? G will have the same number of AS to reach the us. Is there a way to influence the routing decisions through bgp of not only my peers but their peers also?

    thank you,

    hope that made sense :)

    DB:2.51:Bgp Mulihoming aj


    I have one more question regarding this configuration. We use peer B to provide us internet access at remote offices with VPN tunnels to data centers.

    In a normal condition:

    we would like to use peer B to only access the vpn tunnel. Use peer A for internet access to from the data center.

    In a failure condition (peer A fails)

    We would like to provide the data center internet access using peer B.

    In a failure condition (peer B fails)

    We would like to have the vpn tunnels use peer A to route traffic to and from remote offices.

    The problem is if I prepend the route advertised to peer B 3 times, there could be a situation where another AS (let's say AS Q) is 4 hops away from us using B while it is 6 hops away from us using peer A. If the peer B is configured with a local-preference to go directly to us, anything entering peer B would traverse it and access us using them and we would like to keep that traffic only for vpn tunnels in a normal situation.

    How do I make traffic that is originating from peer B only access use directly while anything else go to peer A?

    Thank you in advance for your help.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.51

    DB:2.51:Poor Service fd



    RE: Shaw case #6848-25965062,

    I have been having problems with cable and internet since February 28th. I received a msg from Shaw to let you know if I was still having problems but when I replied to that email I received a notification that email address was no longer in use??????

    I need an update on the situation. Two weeks should be more than enough time to resolve my issues. I don't appreciate paying for services that I am not receiving.

    DB:2.51:Poor Service fd


    ok thanks. I will check my inbox for your reply.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.51

    DB:2.51:Bgp Routing Via Vpn (Hubn Spoke Topologie) 7c



    Hi all,

    have here a Hub 'n Spoke VPN topology between three Rtrs (where RtrB is the hub site), VPN tunnels are build up between RtrB-RtrA and RtrB-RtrC, EBGP peering is the same as the VPN topology(RtrB 2 RtrA and RtrB 2 RtrC). Now my problem: BGP comes up the peers are send/receiving the routes, but a connection between RtrA-RtrC is not possible, although the routes from the private LAN A is in RtrC routing table. Is there an issue like Spilt-Horizon in VPN, may be its not possible to route traffic on the Hub site from on tunnel to the next tunnel. Many thanks in advance...

    DB:2.51:Bgp Routing Via Vpn (Hubn Spoke Topologie) 7c


    Actually, IPSec can be used to encrypt routing packets, and BGP is a protocol commonly used because it is unicast in nature and can work over multiple hops. There is some opinion that it is better to use BGP over IPSec than using BGP md5 authentication, although I don't know if it is being used much at the provider level (suspect not given performance overheads)

    The reason that IPSec is incompatible with most interior protocols is that they are unicast/multicast (not supported by IPSec) and rely on the neighbor being directly attached. This is why GRE tunnels are commonly suggested as the solution. This also avoids the confusion that arises between the routing policy and crypto policy.

    In a lot of different IOS versions, there were issues with same-interface switching and IPSec. It varies from IOS to IOS and model to model. One of the first things to try if this is happening to you is to turn off fast-switching on the relevant interfaces. Bear in mind that the more advanced features you try and combine on one router, the more likely you will find some issue. So if you're going to try to combine MPLS/CEF/IPSec/NAT/RPF/same interface routing be prepared to spend a lot of time talking to the TAC

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.50

    DB:2.50:Bgp Path Selection 9a



    Following is the scenario:

    There are 4 routers connected in square formation, D1, D2, C1, C2

    D1 is physically connected to C1 and D2

    D2 is physically connected to C2 and D1

    C1 is physically connected to C2

    C1,C2 are in AS-1

    D1-D2 are in AS-2

    C1-D1 has ebgp peering

    C2-D2 has ebgp peering

    C1-C2 has IBGP peering

    D1-D2 has IBGP peering

    Our objective is; all the incoming traffic for prefix 10.0.0.0/8 should come towards D1 under normal conditions:

    This ia how I am trying to achieve it;

    D1 advertises 10.0.0.0/8 using aggregate address command to C1

    D2 advertised 10.0.0.0/8 {2,2} using aggregate address command and a route map for as-path prepend to C2

    C1's bgp table:

    10.0.0.0/8 pointing --D1

    10.0.0.0/8 {2,2}pointing -- C2

    C1's routing table:

    10.0.0.0/8 -- D1 ( this is as desired OK)

    C2's bgp table:

    10.0.0.0/8 --C1

    10.0.0.0/8 {2,2} -- D2

    C2's routing table:

    10.0.0.0/8 {2,2} --D2 ( this is problematic for me, I want C2 to put the other route that it has learned from C1 in its routing table)

    According to CISCO's BGP best path selection, Shortest AS_PATH is preferred first as it is rule # 4. EBGP over IBGP is rule# 7

    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/tk80/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094431.shtml

    What's happening at C2 is that C2 is preferring EBGP over IBGP (rule7 and not taking into consideration the as-path length rule 4. There is no specific configuration in bgp of C2 for ignoring AS-Path while making selection. What could be the possible reason or a solution to this problem

    I am running 12.1E on 6500s

    DB:2.50:Bgp Path Selection 9a


    The problem is fixed by configuring no-sync.Thanks IQ

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.50

    DB:2.50:Netgear R7000 zj



    Just purchased the Netgear R7000 in an attempt to improve the poor performance I have been getting from the Shaw default modem. How can I get the shaw modem pass thru so I can connect the R7000

    DB:2.50:Netgear R7000 zj


    Hi covkid,

    To put your modem into pass-through or bridge mode will require a change from our end. I will send you a private message to assist further here, please check your Community Inbox.

    Jeff

    Community Moderator

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.50

    DB:2.50:Unusable Internet. Tier 1 Support Is Useless. p8



    Have performed all troubleshooting steps.
    Direct connection.Reboot.Have tech reprovision.Safe mode / networking.Several different PC'sDifferent operating systems.

    Can't get over 6 Mbps / .1 POINT ONE Mbps Up. from speedtest.shaw.ca, I'm on a 20 Mbps profile. Suggestion from Tier 1 support is to downgrade me?

    I CANNOT watch youtube at all.

    1080P/720P/480/360 all buffer for minutes on end for a few seconds of playing.

    Analyzing my traffic it would seem the data is coming from a shaw cache server 24.244.8.14. If I reject connections from this IP i get connected to a california server that google seems to own. And the peering to there I get 2Mbps so 480p youtube is out of the question.

    I need the issue resolved, and downgrading is just not an option. Because I'll be honest I spend a LOT of time on the computer and it's the field I work in. I'll just go to a different provider. I would obviously stay with shaw if we can reach some sort of solution. Please help me.

    DB:2.50:Unusable Internet. Tier 1 Support Is Useless. p8


    Just as a reference

    This is a speedtest just taken, no usage on my network. Just the speedtest. These speeds are to anywhere. Up to 20% packet loss at the second hop outside of my network.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.50

    DB:2.50:Ibgp Peering ff



    I am trying to establish my ibgp peering.  The routers are three ip hops away from each other and we use eigrp for our igp.  Nothing I have tried works.  Any assistance is appreciated.  I am able to ping loopback to loopback without bpg running.  My loopbacks are 172.20.232.23 (PC) and 172.18.232.23 (SMC).  I am unable to ping between them with bgp running.  Also, I am able to successfully establish the peering.  Since I can't ping between the loopbacks when the session is established, the session times out after three minutes and reestablishes.  The one thing I am seeing in debugs is a "recursion error routing 172.20.232.23 -  possible routing loop" after the peering is established.  Here is the rest of the debug leading to this message:

    Here are my configs:

    PC-ASR

    SMC-ASR

    Here are the show ip bgp results:

    PC-ASR

    SMC-ASR

    Thanks

    DB:2.50:Ibgp Peering ff


    Please rate the thread as resolved.

    Regards,

    Edison

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.50

    DB:2.50:Msdp Peering mj



    Does msdp peering require bgp?  thx

    DB:2.50:Msdp Peering mj


    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2/ip/configuration/guide/1cfmsdp_ps1835_TSD_Products_Configuration_Guide_Chapter.html

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.48

    DB:2.48:Edge Routing To Single Isp aa



    Hello All,

    We have the following setup

    C1 and C2 are Core Routers peering with same ISP through ebgp and ospf peering with D1 and E1. There is no firewall between C's and E but there is active/passive setup between C's and D. Now, let's assume D1 is advertising  1.0.0.0/22 and 2.0.0.0/24 networks to C's which is intern advertising in BGP to the world. My understanding is we would announce those  two network statement's and bunch of other networks from E (not 1918) in both the routers C1 and C2 , to better load sharing and redundancy. Will that cause any assymetric routing issues ?  If we do announce on both routers, should we expect load sharing on both the routers as both has a GiG Internet Connectivity  , or should we tweak in with bgp attributes ?

    Thanks,

    Josh

    DB:2.48:Edge Routing To Single Isp aa


    Hi Josh,

    I think your approach is right. Advertise all prefixs from both C1 and C2 to the ISP will give you the redundancy. Asymemtric routing shouldn't be an issue, if that's one FW between C and D. BGP doesnt do load sharing by default, unless ISP agree to config multi-path ebgp, only one path will be installed in the routing table for one prefix. If you want get inbound traffic load balanced acorss C1 and C2, you need to play the bgp attribute or advertise different prefixs on each WAN router. For bgp attribute, you can do as-prepend of the prefixs on the WAN router to make that path less prefer.

    HTH,

    Lei Tian

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.48

    DB:2.48:High Cpu Utilization In 7606 With Sub7203bxl With Full Internet Table 38



    we have two Internet Gateway 7606 with Sub720-3BXL , that peering with many service providers( more than 7, total uplinks 3G)running full internet routing table, we are facing high cpu utilization more than 35 %. we want to solve this issue since we will peer with more internet service provider, if we upgrade our routers to 12406 with PRP2 can solve the cpu utilization problems and the PRP2 can reduce the cpu utilization to less than 5%.thanks

    DB:2.48:High Cpu Utilization In 7606 With Sub7203bxl With Full Internet Table 38


    Hello Ahmed,

    your understanding is correct and SIP-601 is newer.

    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps167/product_data_sheet0900aecd80465682.html

    The setup you are thinking of should be fine.

    SIP-600 is not object of EOS announcement but it is likely to be the first to be retired from market.

    Hope to help

    Giuseppe

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.48

    DB:2.48:Nexus 7k And L3 Peering 7k



    Hi,

    I have a few questions related to the method of L3 peering between N7k and a generic L3 device (let's say it is a router) - the idea is to connect N7k to the core network. The current design is based on Cat6k switches (they are the core of my network) which have many Vlans and SVI interfaces for them.

    EIGRP is also used currently on Cat6k and other L3 devices in my network.

    The goal is to extend Vlans from the current Cat6k to a pair of N7k configured for vPC. To do that I would have to configure L2 trunks (and NOT to use vPC links) between Cat6k and a pair of N7k and use them to pass all the current Vlans to N7k. How to establish EIGRP adjajency between Cat6k and N7k and at the same time pass all the vlans? Should I add any new Vlan on N7k/Cat6k, create SVI for it and use it to establish EIGRP peering?

    Is the above the correct thinking? if not how to do that?

    - One of the design docs say that we MUST use L3 routed interfaces to connect these two devices (N7k and a core network).

    - Other ones mention that the _recommended_ way is to use L3 routed interfaces to connect these two devices ('recommended' means what? that any other options are available? what are they?)

    - And other ones say that can use Vlan peering (through SVI interfaces) if only we make sure not to use vPC vlans (peering of routing protocols using a VLAN also carried on the vPC peer-link is not supported). Does it mean that if I configure any new/additional Vlan between the core and the vPC domain + I would exclude that vlan from vPC peer-link that I can configure EIGRP/OSPF peering between a generic vPC device and vPC domain???

    what about STP root and HSRP? During the migration can they stay on the 6K till I move all my servers from 6k to N7k?

    Will the communication be ok? or I can came across the situation that the traffic would be filtered by the peer-link of N7k?

    regards,

    m.w

    DB:2.48:Nexus 7k And L3 Peering 7k


    No. That is not what I need to do. I want to EXTEND Vlans up to N7k. To do that I can't use L3 link.

    My idea was to use L2 links WITHOUT vPC between C6k and N7k and use an additional Vlan to establish l3 peering (eigrp,ospf). I would also exclude that vlan from vPC peer-link. To rule out possible split-area failure I would add 1 more vlan to establish l3 peering between N7k-N7k.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.48

    DB:2.48:Bgp Peering Establishment mj



    Hi,

    would the BGP peering fail because of the duplex mismatch?

    Thanks.

    Greg...                  

    DB:2.48:Bgp Peering Establishment mj


    Hello,

    There is no such restriction (BGP Speaking) that would prevent a BGP session to be established due to a duplex mismatch on the BGP routers.

    Now, check the interfaces that are participating in the BGP process for errors (Colissions) as the main issue with duplex mismatch is when both devices send packets at the same time (In a full duplex world everything is cool but for a half-duplex device then we have some issues).

    So as a recommendation fix that (Make sure full-duplex is used whether auto-negotiated or Configured statically) so you can take the most of the network.

    Final note: BGP could be affected by this as any other traffic in the network

    For more information about Core and Security Networking follow my website at http://laguiadelnetworking.com Any question contact me at jcarvaja@laguiadelnetworking.com Cheers, Julio Carvajal Segura

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.48

    DB:2.48:Which Routing Protocol To Use For Vpn Backup? 8m



    I am trying to setup a VPN backup solution for one of our MPLS connected branch offices. I've configured the tunnel interfaces as required and that is working as expected, however I'm looking for suggestions on which direction to go with the routing.

    The MPLS routers at both sites are running EIGRP (different AS's) and redistributing into BGP to traverse the provider MPLS network (both using same private AS number).

    My original thought was to just use BGP and setup peering between the tunnel interfaces, but since the AS numbers are the same the routes learned via the backup path become iBGP and are prefered over the eBGP learned routes of the primary MPLS path.

    Does anyone have any suggestions? Are there any best practices when it comes to GRE tunnel interfaces and routing?

    Thanks,

    Aaron

    DB:2.48:Which Routing Protocol To Use For Vpn Backup? 8m

    Hi

    this will depend on your overall network design.

    We use as primary network a dmvpn network with most sites connected with a simple rip setup and for backup we use isdn with floating statics. the sites have only one route for LAN and WAN, so the setup is simple. for sites with higher demands we have a second dmvpn network with eigrp running and all sites have two wan routers and redundant LAN routers

    so we have load sharing and failover.

    the management of the floating statics are not so complicated because from the remote site only one route is needed an and in the datacenter also. management is done by tools like the rme from cisco or with scripts like rancid.

    for your situation it may be a solution to use mpls as transport for some kind off vpn and to ignore the provider bgp. or use bgp over the vpn.

    it highly depends on what your requirements are.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.48

    DB:2.48:Mcafee Rated Poor - Can Shaw Offer Something Better? sf



    Just read an article rating several antivirus programs - 2014 Antivirus Software Head-to-Head Comparison

    and it looks like McAfee is near the bottom - any comments Shaw moderators?

    DB:2.48:Mcafee Rated Poor - Can Shaw Offer Something Better? sf


    I preferred F-Secure over McAfee as well. I would like to see an option in Shaw Secure that allows more advanced users to work with features/functions locked out by Shaw.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.47

    DB:2.47:Incredibly Poor Service Past Month. 3s



    First, we had the routing issue which left many people like me unable to connect to things for nearly a week till it was 100% resolved. I was forced to pay for a VPN service just to get past your routing flaws. Now, my ping is god awful (Yes, Ive turned off the VPN and am using a wired PC to test.) I get any where from an perfectly fine 50-60 ping on the shaw speedtest, up to 160 ping or 180 even. The speed will fluctuate from 10mbps to 40mbps too.

    So first, I couldn't connect to almost anything without using a VPN which greatly lowered my speeds, then once thats fixed I have incredibly unstable ping/speeds which makes anything done in this house hold regarding gaming, totally useless.

    Why am I paying for the 50mbps plan when we can't even use it for anything but streaming netflix and reading facebook.

    This is just getting a tad bit ridiculous, I feel helpless. its hard to explain what i mean by helpless. these issues have just been non-stop for so long, and what am I going to do. go to telus and pay more for a slower speed? No, you know we cant just go to telus. So you're screwing people like me around who have no choice but to just hope and pray that things start working eventually.

    I just want the issues solved... Using the internet is purely a matter of frustration lately. Want to go browse a webpage? Oh, hold on it timed out refresh it maybe youll get an okay ping this time. Want to play an online game? Naww man, youve got 250 ping you wouldn't dare.

    DB:2.47:Incredibly Poor Service Past Month. 3s


    Thanks for the extra info dmirage

    I've sent you a direct message. You can click here to access your inbox and reply, and we'll figure out what's causing this problem.

    Matt

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.46

    DB:2.46:Peering Bgp Routers Over Ospf Network? 1p



    Would there be any issues peering 2 BGP routers over an OSPF Network or would this cause any major issues or even work? 

    We will have 2 separate ISP's we are connected to with routers that are about 5 hops apart (Internet Routing via OSPF).  For redundancy I need to peer these routers via iBGP so they can exchange BGP routes with each other.  Can I just setup bgp neighbor's between the two routers that are not on the same subnets or will need to run BGP on every router in between them? 

    What do you think?

    Jim

    DB:2.46:Peering Bgp Routers Over Ospf Network? 1p


    Hi Milan

    I did actually think of this but i just wasn't sure it would work and have never come across it before so i didn't feel comfortable suggesting it as a possible solution.

    You are right though, there is no reason, as far as i can see, as to why it wouldn't work and it would provide the failover needed for specific networks.

    For some reason i always think of GRE tunnels as a sort of last resort but i think that's often a mistake because in some scenarios they are just what is needed.

    Jon

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.46

    DB:2.46:Bgp Routing Through Vpn Topology (Hub N Spoke) fp



    Hi all,

    have here a Hub 'n Spoke VPN topology between three Rtrs (where RtrB is the hub site), VPN tunnels are build up between RtrB-RtrA and RtrB-RtrC, EBGP peering is the same as the VPN topology(RtrB 2 RtrA and RtrB 2 RtrC). Now my problem: BGP comes up the peers are send/receiving the routes, but a connection between RtrA-RtrC is not possible, although the routes from the private LAN A is in RtrC routing table. Is there an issue like Spilt-Horizon in VPN, may be its not possible to route traffic on the Hub site from on tunnel to the next tunnel. Many thanks in advance...

    DB:2.46:Bgp Routing Through Vpn Topology (Hub N Spoke) fp


    If thats the case, a frame map statement would help in reachability of next hops. Put one map statement at A and C each....

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.46

    DB:2.46:Routing Problem To Virginia - 4500km In Wrong Direction cs



    Links to tracerts included at bottom:

    Everything has been perfect up until yesterday. Fast speeds, low latency. Suddenly I notice problems with latency and speed to my server in VA. I ran a tracert and the first one comes back showing me routing now from Hamilton to ny.shawcable, which passes me to Internet2.edu?! This is when the problems arise ( I didn't know Internet2.edu accepted residential traffic? )

    An hour passes, routing changes again, and things get worse. I check again routing to Virginia ( south of me ), I'm going from Hamilton, out to Shaw Winnipeg, then out to Shaw Calgary, which then passes me to Peer1 Vancouver?

    As you can see there is something wrong. My VA server is 900 KM South, and I am being routed 4500 KM West?

    Please advise, many of my other servers are also seeing poor routing changes.

    Tracert to VA: Tracing route to . [64.34.186.94] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 amp;lt;1 ms - Pastebin.com

    Tracert showing Internet2.edu: 1 amp;lt;1 ms amp;lt;1 ms amp;lt;1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 10 ms 7 ms 7 ms 11. - Pastebin.com

    DB:2.46:Routing Problem To Virginia - 4500km In Wrong Direction cs


    I opened a ticket for you with Peer1 and they mention the trace stops within the Shaw network. Please look into this again Shaw.

    This is the response from the Peer1 NOC, if it helps you:

    "We advertise the 64.34.184.0/22 out the PIX (Peer 1 Internet Exchange) in

    Toronto through a peering session with Shaw, we also receive an advertisement

    of 50.70.0.0/17 from this same peer. The trace stops partially within Shaw's

    network I could only speculate on the cause."

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.44

    DB:2.44:Routing Issues 19



    Hey, I've noticed a downward trend in quality of routing to most servers I plan on now. I realize it's not always going to be perfect but this is becoming annoying. For example I used to ALWAYS ping very well to Chicago servers, because all my data would be routing on Shaws network back east in Canada then passed down to Chicago efficiently. It's not just effecting Chicago, it's terrible to most servers I play on, here's just two examples of how non efficient it is. Seems like most if not all data just gets handed off to Seattle, and peering from there is terribly handled.

    Here is a tracert of a server I frequent in Chicago. Goes all over the place. It stays on shaw's network until it hits wp (Winnipeg)? then goes back to Seattle? Prior to this routing I would ping 50's.

    Tracing route to 50.113.21.199.hypernia.com [199.21.113.50]

    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.1

    2 8 ms 9 ms 7 ms 11.7.128.1

    3 10 ms 11 ms 10 ms rd1ht-tge1-2-32.ok.shawcable.net [64.59.169.25]

    4 9 ms 10 ms 9 ms rd2ht-tge2-1.ok.shawcable.net [66.163.72.162]

    5 14 ms 11 ms 12 ms 66.163.66.222

    6 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms 66.163.67.241

    7 22 ms 17 ms 17 ms 66.163.74.102

    8 27 ms 28 ms 22 ms rc2nr-tge0-0-0-2.wp.shawcable.net [66.163.74.158

    ]

    9 86 ms 77 ms 83 ms xe-8-0-0.sea22.ip4.gtt.net [173.205.63.53]

    10 92 ms 85 ms 86 ms xe-5-0-1.chi11.ip4.gtt.net [89.149.187.138]

    11 77 ms 77 ms 78 ms as23352.chi11.ip4.gtt.net [199.229.229.210]

    12 94 ms 77 ms 78 ms ae4.cr2.ord6.us.scnet.net [204.93.204.87]

    13 87 ms 85 ms 85 ms 72.ae2.ar2.ord6.us.scnet.net [204.93.204.159]

    14 90 ms 86 ms 85 ms as36352.xe-2-1-3.ar2.ord6.us.scnet.net [50.31.15

    4.182]

    15 86 ms 85 ms 85 ms 10ge-1.gf146.chi1.colocrossing.com [206.217.137.

    250]

    16 77 ms 77 ms 77 ms 50.113.21.199.hypernia.com [199.21.113.50]

    Trace complete.

    Tracing route to 69.174.243.25 over a maximum of 30 hops

    Here is an example of a server in Texas.

    1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.1

    2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms 11.7.128.1

    3 10 ms 10 ms 9 ms rd1ht-tge1-2-32.ok.shawcable.net [64.59.169.25]

    4 8 ms 7 ms 18 ms rd2ht-tge2-1.ok.shawcable.net [66.163.72.162]

    5 824 ms 11 ms 11 ms 66.163.66.226

    6 17 ms 17 ms 15 ms 66.163.67.233

    7 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 206.41.104.1

    8 20 ms 22 ms 21 ms 10ge.xe-0-0-0.sea-wes7-dis-1.peer1.net [216.187.

    88.30]

    9 19 ms 19 ms 20 ms 10ge.xe-0-3-0.sea-coloc-dis-1.peer1.net [216.187

    .89.190]

    10 61 ms 98 ms 64 ms 10ge.xe-2-1-0.chi-eqx-dis-1.peer1.net [216.187.8

    9.26]

    11 * * * Request timed out.

    12 * * * Request timed out.

    13 * * * Request timed out.

    14 107 ms 98 ms 97 ms 69.174.243.25

    Trace complete.

    Goes from Seattle to Chicago, then Texas? Terrible routing .

    I guess I'm just asking if Shaw monitors these things? I know for most people gaming and pings don't matter, I understand that, but to me it does matter and I would just like to have the same quality ping's as before. Shaw's routing last year was at the best i've seen it, then things got worse this year, not sure what changed. Wish your peering partners took more pride in efficient routes, but that's probably asking too much

    DB:2.44:Routing Issues 19


    The 4th hop router is getting slammed? It's effecting all my pings everywhere tonight. I usually get 8 - 10 ms to that IP. Is it in Kelowna? 150 ping to TX is super bad

    Tracing route to 69.174.243.25 over a maximum of 30 hops

    1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.1

    2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms 11.7.128.1

    3 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms rd1ht-tge1-2-32.ok.shawcable.net [64.59.169.25]

    4 37 ms 38 ms 39 ms rd2ht-tge2-1.ok.shawcable.net [66.163.72.162]

    5 47 ms 47 ms 44 ms 66.163.66.226

    6 48 ms 48 ms 47 ms 66.163.67.233

    7 48 ms 46 ms 44 ms 206.41.104.1

    8 53 ms 48 ms 48 ms 10ge.xe-0-0-0.sea-wes7-dis-1.peer1.net [216.187.88.30]

    9 49 ms 49 ms 48 ms 10ge.xe-0-3-0.sea-coloc-dis-1.peer1.net [216.187.89.190]

    10 79 ms 80 ms 81 ms 10ge.ten1-2.sj-mkp16-dis-1.peer1.net [216.187.88.202]

    11 77 ms 81 ms 80 ms 10ge.ten1-2.sj-mkp2-dis-1.peer1.net [216.187.88.134]

    12 85 ms 86 ms 96 ms 10ge.xe-2-2-1.lax-600w-sbcor-1.peer1.net [216.187.88.129]

    13 73 ms 104 ms 75 ms 10ge.xe-0-0-0.la-600w-sbcor-2.peer1.net [216.187.88.58]

    14 * * * Request timed out.

    15 * * * Request timed out.

    16 * * * Request timed out.

    17 159 ms 162 ms 158 ms 69.174.243.25

    Trace complete.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.44

    DB:2.44:Shaw Email j9



    Hi do I have to get Shaw internet to create a Shaw email account?

    DB:2.44:Shaw Email j9


    Just guessing, you want WiFi access?

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.44

    DB:2.44:Routing Issue With My Webhost...Jason Or Any Other Comcast Tech Please Look s1


    I have been dealing with my new webhost for about 2 months and a month ago I notice could only ever hit 350 KB/sec on my server downloading stuff.

    Well see this thread for much more detailed info http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13135892 .

    Well after Crystaltech has dealt with there network/servers and talking to Qwest they just emailed me this today.

    Dear xxxxx,

    We have come to a conclusion. Through all of our local research and Qwest's research we cannot find any limiting factors related to both CT or Qwest. What we did find is that all the complaints we have received show an ATT handoff to Qwest in their traceroutes. Either all complaining customers have ATT as their ISP or their ISP is directly peering with ATT.

    You can even see this in all the traceroutes posted to the dslreports forum thread.

    All we can suggest is that you contact your ISP to research a potentail limitation on their network or with their peering connection(s).

    CrystalTech Web Hosting
    www.crystaltech.com

    Can comcast talk to ATT about it's peering to the QWEST network at all. This isn't a comcast issue per say since it seems all midwest and east coast ISP's have this issue but they all seem to go through ATT and that's the issue.

    Thanks!

    DB:2.44:Routing Issue With My Webhost...Jason Or Any Other Comcast Tech Please Look s1

    It has to do with a peering issue. The quicktime thing is just part of the coding I can't get around that do the way it's coded.

    I am looking for Jason1 or someone at comcast to talk to ATT with it's handoff to qwest that appears to be the issue.

    I can only max out at 400KB/sec vs 650-700KB/sec like I normally can on any other site.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.44

    DB:2.44:Does Anyone Know What Is Going On With Shaw Email???????? c9



    Have lost email for 2 days.....can get access via webmail but not windows live mail. Cant get an answer on phone.....or a chat response. Poor, poor service shaw. what is happening.

    DB:2.44:Does Anyone Know What Is Going On With Shaw Email???????? c9


    Hi tcoape-arnold,

    I can definitely understand your frustration with regard to this. I'm very sorry for the long waits while trying to reach a phone or chat agent - our teams have been really busy since last night due to the e-mail issue (we have more information available here). We definitely want to get this resolved as soon as possible for you, and I'd be happy to take a look into what could be causing this.

    Are you getting an error message which asks you for your password if you try to send/receive mail in Windows Live Mail? If so, are you able to send mail after entering your password? To start out, we'd kindly ask you to enter into the settings for the account and re-enter the password. To do this, please select File - Options - E-mail Accounts - your account - Properties - Servers - delete and re-enter your password, and then click OK.

    Please let us know how this goes. If you're still getting an error message in Windows Live Mail after trying this, we can definitely send you a direct message to look into this further for you.

    Kind regards,

    Tegan

    Community Moderator

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.44

    DB:2.44:Bgp - Public And Private As Peering df



    Hi All,

    What are the typical challenges in peering between Public and Private AS numbers

    Thanks

    NK

    DB:2.44:Bgp - Public And Private As Peering df


    Hi All,

    What are the typical challenges in peering between Public and Private AS numbers

    Thanks

    NK

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.43

    DB:2.43:Shaw Go Wifi For Shaw Direct Customers jp



    do shaw direct customers have access to Shaw go Wifi hotspots

    DB:2.43:Shaw Go Wifi For Shaw Direct Customers jp


    Shaw internet service is a pre-requisite for access to the Shaw Go Wifi hotspots, but it's totally something we could offer in the future! If you wanted access now and had a family member with Shaw Internet, you could always ask for them to create you an email address to use.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.43

    DB:2.43:Asa5500 As A Border Device ff



    HI

    can we use ASA5500 (HA mode)device as border device (inplace of router?). Does it has capability to run routing protocol like BGP? So that it can make peering with ISP links for redundency?

    thanks

    regards

    Rakesh

    ======

    DB:2.43:Asa5500 As A Border Device ff


    ok.. got it.. I wanted to reconfirm if anything has changes since latest release. Thanks a lot.

    regards

    rakesh

    ======

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.42

    DB:2.42:Routing Over The Vpc Peer Link? sj



    Hello all. is it advisable to route between my distribution switches over the VPC peer link using an SVI? or should I provision a separate layer 3 link for routing? I have vpc peering between 2 7009s and im running nxos 6.1. Thanks,

    DB:2.42:Routing Over The Vpc Peer Link? sj


    Dont worry, its not in the books, but it just works fine. I have case which is running for two years without any issue.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.42

    DB:2.42:Poor Shaw Service 8k



    I got an install yesterday and have a similar horror story. i was ' slave' to Shaw from 2:30 pm to 1:30 am when I finally got activated service . I spent over 3 and a half hours on hold from my diial ins to them and more time on their call backs. An awful lot of my cel minutes and my time! Obviously my time means nothing to Shaw.

    I am currently on hold trying to give 30 day notice to cancel my service which I am ONLY able to do by phone. I have been on hold for one hour and 29minutes, not including the 6 minutes I waited for a callback. Dispute the self promoting rhetoric my call is NOT important to them!,

    This his has been my worst experience ever with a telecommunications company,! I just want to give 30 day notice to cancel service.

    Let me go SHAW

    DB:2.42:Poor Shaw Service 8k


    Hi pathodgson

    I am sorry to hear of your experience, I will message you directly to investigate this further for you.

    Please check your Inbox above or follow this link to see my message: https://community.shaw.ca/communications

    Thank you

    Ali | Shaw Community Moderator

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.42

    DB:2.42:Voip Peering fx



    Are there any providers or NAP's that only carry VoIP traffic? No other IP traffic on those pipes...

    DB:2.42:Voip Peering fx


    There are a few VoIP Service Providers out there.

    Genuity is one. As a former customer, the service was good, I'd hope they have worked out some more bugs (specifically with echo). They can support both H323 or SIP. As a shareholder, please go with genuity. Also as a shareholder, i'd be careful, company isn't doing so well. The products are good and the people are top knotch, I hope they can turn things around.

    We've looked at ATT as well, looked like a good solution. I believe they can only handle H323, not sure. Cost was definately an issue.

    Delta Three also a good provider, looked hard at them, cost was the defining factor. Seemed like top knotch people.

    Another source is Appia, really interesting solution. They can handle H323 and CCM inter-cluster trunks. Pricing was very competitive.

    We're in a holding pattern currently with off-loading some of our VoIP LD. Appia and Delta three are my two picks right now. There may be some other players out there now.

    Tim Medley, CCNP+Voice, CCDP, CWNA

    Sr. Network Architect

    VoIP Group

    iReadyWorld

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.42

    DB:2.42:Slow Speeds On Psn 1k



    Ya. I don't know what Shaw has done on there end but gaming has gone for a crap.

    All my computers achieve speeds of 106 Mbps.

    Both my PS3 and PS4 only get 2.0 Mbps.

    I would have to guess that shaw is not correctly routing traffic to gaming servers.

    I have the Cisco DPC3825.I also have the gateway for tv if that matters at all.

    I hope you guys fix this issue on your end.

    DB:2.42:Slow Speeds On Psn 1k


    I've branched your posts off to a new discussion as your issue does not appear to be related to the other ones in the previous thread joinaunion.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.42

    DB:2.42:How To Determine Router Handle Bgp Routing ff



    Hi,

    I am working on determine which model of router and RAM size which can handle the BGP routing table.  Did you have any experience how to do a judement. According Ram + CPU .... etc?

    Currently I planning to add manage 3 peering with full BGP table for each peering.  Please advise Thx!

    DB:2.42:How To Determine Router Handle Bgp Routing ff


    Let's say my upstream have 3 ISP and provide me full route table say 338K entries.   My side will owned 1 AS number with 8K IP address.  Did information I need to concern?

    thx!

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.42

    DB:2.42:Nexus 7000 Bgp Routing Design Question Vpc/Non-Vpc Vlan km



    Hi guys,

    there is a lot of confusion around regarding how to design and deploy routing protocols such as OSPF / EIGRP / BGP and so on..

    well, I have my questions too... and would be happy if you guys could comment:

    Within the Release notes 5.2 I have found the following:

    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/datacenter/sw/5_x/nx-os/release/notes/52_nx-os_release_note.html

    I have not found this in the Release Notes of 6.0 and 6.1, if I was to blind to find it, please point it out. But I imagine it is still a valid point also in future versions to come. @ Cisco guys, please correct me if I'm mistaken.

    Below are four options, whereby I believe only Option 1 is valid:

    Option 1: Router running BGP peering from its physical interfaces to the two Nexus 7000 directly connected Interfaces (routed ints on N7K) VALID

    Option 2: Router BGP attached to N5K which is VPCed to N7K, peering from its SVI with the Router below. - most likely NOT valid

    Option 3: Router BGP attached to N2K which is single attached to one N7K or VPCed to both N7K's. On N2K a routed port is created. - most likely NOT valid too.

    Option 4: Router BGP attached to routed port on N2K, transiting via N5K VPCed to N7K - most likely NOT valid.

    Routed.Links.on.Nexus.01

    In order to support a possible scenario, I thought of the following:

    But most likely NOT VALID too, but please correct me.

    Creating two local independant Vlans on each N7K. Peering from N7K's SVI towards the Router below via VPCed N5K / N2K.

    Having N2K configured on port 1 as vlan access X and on port 2 as vlan access Y.

    And having the BGP session peer over it.

    Of course there also has to be a peering between the two N7Ks which I forgotten to draw here.

    Routed.Links.on.Nexus.02

    Routed.Links.on.Nexus.03_SVI-non-vpc-vlan01

    This may work:

    Running OSPF between the two N7K via a seperate port-channel over a NON-VPC-VLAN and having the Router attached via the VPCed N5K - N2K.

    On N2K the ports would reside in Vlan X, enabling a OSPF adjacency from the Router below to both N7K's.

    Over this OSPF session I would use Loopbacks in order to establish my BGP session.

    Routed.Links.on.Nexus.03_SVI-non-vpc-vlan02

    OSPF and BGP session info

    Thank you for your comments

    Colin

    DB:2.42:Nexus 7000 Bgp Routing Design Question Vpc/Non-Vpc Vlan km


    I would also like to know the answer to this. I swear that I heard in a tech talk a few months ago that this caveat of routing over VPC was no longer. Without sticking it in a lab I have no idea how to verify it.

    -J

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.42

    DB:2.42:Catalyst 3750 Intervlan Routing Performance z9



    We are using port based vlan configuration, for every building we are using one vlan. Each Building contains approximetely  100 employees. But the routing performance between vlans are poor. Because of performance problem, ms outlook is repeatedly giving "connection has lost" , "connection restored" messages.

    How can i increase the routing performance?

    Regards.

    DB:2.42:Catalyst 3750 Intervlan Routing Performance z9


    hi egemen,

    do you also have clients located in the same vlan as the exchange server? if yes, do they also show the same problem?

    what other traffic is also routed via this c3750?

    as ranraju said before it would be a good thing to test the connectivity and the latency with pings.

    regards,

    florian

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.41

    DB:2.41:How Do I Access Sub-Titles On Video On Demand? 9f


    How do I access sub-titles for movies on Shaw Video on Demand? The closed captions on Robot and Frank that I'm presently trying to watch are so poor that I'm unable to watch it :-(

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.40

    DB:2.40:Route Reflector Cluster And Peering 9m



    Routing TCP/IP Volume II states (page 126)

    A client router in a route reflection cluster CAN peer with external neighbors . . .

    on page 130

    Although clients CANNOT peer with routers outside of their own cluster . . .

    Could someone clear up this story (they can or they cannot)????

    Thanks

    DB:2.40:Route Reflector Cluster And Peering 9m


    A Client needs to peer only with the route-reflector in case of IBGP. That doesnt mean that it cannot peer with EBGP peers. Client of a route-reflector cluster can peer with EBGP neighbors. Non clients will get the EBGP routes via the Route reflector.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.40

    DB:2.40:Terrible Lag Of Shaw.Ca Mail Delivery To Blackberry (Rogers) fd



    Any others experiencing this?? I know through my own personal network of friends that I am not the only Shaw/Rogers user who is experiencing this and growing increasingly frustrated by it.

    I have been on the phone extensively with Rogers regarding this as my lags are anywhere from 5 minutes to 1 hour and 25 minutes to receive on my BB after the email has received in Outlook on my PC. It makes conducting any sort of business or communications via one's Blackberry and using a @shaw.ca email address incredibly frustrating.

    Rogers escalated this to RIM on my behalf as I had the ticket open for about a week or so. Everything has come back pointing at Shaw and the mail servers on Shaw's end. Rogers even replicated my BB account in their own in house test environment and found the same problems with @shaw.ca emails. Hotmail etc all seem to be delivered without a lag to my BBerry but the shaw is brutal and quite frankly a real annoyance.

    As a reference.....this is the last message I got with both Rogers and RIM working on the issue; all pointing back to Shaw.


    We got the following reply from RIM (Blackberry)
    "- called RIM, opened ticket INC000026196620
    - RIM rep confirmed that RIM BIS servers areintermittently getting an error when trying to contact the users mailbox atserver pop.shaw.ca
    - this is not an error that they can correct, they areeither being declined by shaw or nothing is responding
    - they did not have any tickets opened regarding knownissues connecting to shaw servers
    - they advised the user to contact shaw
    - shaw probably has multiple email server IP addressesall routing from pop.shaw.ca, possibly one or more of these servers is not responding,or the users mailbox is not properly setup on all of them"
    According to RIM, it is an issue on shaw servers withyour email account. You will have to call shaw and shaw tech. support should beable to fix the issue.

    DB:2.40:Terrible Lag Of Shaw.Ca Mail Delivery To Blackberry (Rogers) fd


    Hi. Have you tried Kevinds's suggestion of forwarding your @shaw.ca emails to your Blackberry address? It would help bring us a step closer to determining what is causing this issue as we could then compare how soon an email comes to your Shaw inbox versus the Blackberry inbox.

    Lance

    Community Moderator

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.40

    DB:2.40:Wireless Service Very Poor 7c



    Wireless service is intermittent, getting fed up. Should I return the new a Shaw modem I just got and buy a router?

    DB:2.40:Wireless Service Very Poor 7c


    Hi there ssgirl

    I will message you directly to take a further look at your account and go through some further troubleshooting with you.

    One of the things worth trying is adjusting your Wireless channel on the Shaw modem: How to Change the Wireless Channel on Your Shaw Wireless Modem

    Thanks,

    Ali | Shaw Community Moderator

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.40

    DB:2.40:My Previous Post Was Rejected. Do I Need Hd Service (Have Shaw Regular Cable Service) To Get Decent Picture On Lcd Tv. I Purchased An Lcd Tv And The Picture Is Of Very Poor Quality. Skin Tones Are Washed Out And Pixelly And Movement Is Blurry. Thanks. pk


    My previous post was rejected. Do I need HD service (have Shaw regular cable service) to get decent picture on LCD TV. I purchased an LCD TV and the picture is of very poor quality. Skin tones are washed out and pixelly and movement is blurry. Thanks.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.40

    DB:2.40:Ios Ips/Ids On A Bgp Peering Router? sz



    We have a pair of BP peerings between our network and our upstream service provider.  Since the peering points are geographically distributed and we run a "cold potato" routing policy on our network we cannot guarantee symmetric routing for traffic exchanged with our upstream service provider.

    Yesterday we followed the bouncing ball through the IPS/IDS setup documentation on a Cisco 2901 running 15.2(4)M3 and acting as a BGP speaking peering router at one of our peering points.  Immediately the router started throwing %IPS-6-SEND_TCP_PAK and %IPS-6-TIMEOUT_EVENT messages in the logs.  We also observed that some upstream service provider web sites became inaccessible to our users.  Turning off IPS/IDS on the 2901 restored connectivity for our users to those web sites.

    Three questions:

    Do the default Cisco IOS IPS/IDS rules assume that the router will see both sides of each TCP session?Does the Cisco IOS IPS/IDS TCP stream reassembly assume an attack and send TCP RST frames when it doesn't see both sides of a TCP session?Should we move the Cisco IPS/IDS functionality from the BGP-speaking routers at peering points to our customer sites, as the customer sites are the only places in our network guaranteed to see both sides of a given TCP session?  (We already perform NAT on the customer site routers for that reason.)

    DB:2.40:Ios Ips/Ids On A Bgp Peering Router? sz


    Hello Bill,

    1) Yes, there are some normalizer functions on some IOS-IPS signatures that will behave like that with this scenarios (Asymetric routing not something good to any kind of security device)

    2) Yes, it will close the connections, I will definetly need to look for specific actions regarding that but you could just check the IOS IPS Signature statistics  on your router , see which is the one triggering the most and then see the action configured for it (and change it if required)

    3) If you cannot change that behavior then it would be safe to tell the router is not a good place to set an IPS or any other kind of firewall configuration unless you set with a weaker security policy (useless from a security standard point of view)

    Check my blog at http:laguiadelnetworking.com for further information. Cheers, Julio Carvajal Segura

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.40

    DB:2.40:Nexus 7k And L3 Peering c3



    Hi,

    I have a few questions related to the method of  L3 peering between N7k and a generic L3 device (let's say it is a  router) - the idea is to connect N7k to the core network. The current  design is based on Cat6k switches (they are the core of my network)  which have many Vlans and SVI interfaces for them.

    EIGRP is also used currently on Cat6k and other L3 devices in my network.

    The goal is to extend Vlans from the current Cat6k to  a pair of N7k configured for vPC. To do that I would have to configure  L2 trunks (and NOT to use vPC links) between Cat6k and a pair of N7k and  use them to pass all the current Vlans to N7k. How to establish EIGRP adjajency between Cat6k and N7k and at the same time pass all the vlans? Should I add any new Vlan on N7k/Cat6k, create SVI for it and use it to establish EIGRP peering?

    Is the above the correct thinking? if not how to do that?

    - One of the design docs say that we MUST use L3 routed interfaces to connect these two devices (N7k and a core network).

    - Other ones mention that the _recommended_ way is to  use L3 routed interfaces to connect these two devices ('recommended'  means what? that any other options are available? what are they?)

    -  And other ones say that can use Vlan peering (through SVI interfaces)  if only we make sure not to use vPC vlans (peering of routing protocols  using a VLAN also carried on the vPC peer-link is not supported). Does  it mean that if I configure any new/additional Vlan between the core and  the vPC domain + I would exclude that vlan from vPC peer-link that I  can configure EIGRP/OSPF peering between a generic vPC device and vPC  domain???

    what about STP root and HSRP? During the migration can they stay on the 6K till I move all my servers from 6k to N7k?

    Will the communication be ok? or I can came across the situation that the traffic would be filtered by the peer-link of N7k?

    regards,

    m.w

    DB:2.40:Nexus 7k And L3 Peering c3


    if you have a simple topology will be helpful to provide more presice answer

    a\however in  general

    if you want to use L2 link ( uplink) with N7K it is better to use vPC to utilize both of the links and take the benifit of the usefual feature in terms of having both links in the forwarding state

    when you said extended the Vlans using a trunk that imply the L2 domain will be extended in this case where wil be the L3 interface created in the Cat65 or the N7K ?

    i would say this will increase the L2 braodcast domain and you need to be careful when configuring Vpc and Non vPC device with extended L2

    if you looking to create the SVIs on both of the Cat65 and N7K not sure how this will looks like in your netwrok ( topology will help )

    - it is better to use routed interfaces to connect to two L3 devices in ters of equal cost mulitpath whcih will help you to load balnce th traffic using a rotuing protocol and simplifyin your routing peering too

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.40

    DB:2.40:Upload Speed Ftp Server 1j



    Hello,

    We have one internet lease connectivity customer 8Mb(1:1) bandwidth (At India) . They are accessing one FTP server at Atlanta(US) which they are using for upload/download files.

    ON our Connectivity they are not getting upload speed transfer rate of not more then 200KB/sec. but as per customer while they were using other provider's connectivity 4Mb before our services they were getting 400-500KB/sec upload transfer rate.

    However we have not yet varified the customer words (for proper upload rate on other providers connectivity). But is this possible to have this kind of problem i.e Just double response as compare to us.

    We have almost checked our international peering (which is the best possible peering), routing , Transmission part from our NOC to customer premises.

    Please suggest what to check now ..Will checking at Atlanta end customer network help us to solve the problem.

    Regards

    Sudhir

    India

    DB:2.40:Upload Speed Ftp Server 1j


    "Uptil how much value we can set for Window XP TCP window size... ? "

    Depends on the other host capabilities and how XP is configured. "Old" TCP standard, up to 64 KB, "newer" TCP standard, 2 GB (I think). By default, XP will use for Ethernet, 12 x 1460 for 100 Mbps, and 64 KB for gig. (BTW, Vista and later Windows is different.)

    However, adjusting host's TCP RWIN is a possible solution. Assuming, from your original post, that the end hosts are the same and only the WAN is different, you should first identify what's different about the WAN that lead to a decrease in host transfer rate. Once you've found the cause, then discussing possible solutions makes sense.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.40

    DB:2.40:Loopback Issue On Asbr sc



    Dear All,

    Can anyone help in understanding the impact of using public IP on loopback interface. Is it possible to use the same loopback IP for eBGP peering and OSPF router-id. What would be the impact on routing decisions? Shall we use OSPF neighbour IP address as router-id in OSPF config (Forced way)?

    Please share your observations and comments.

    DB:2.40:Loopback Issue On Asbr sc


    Just an additional comment. If you have synchronization, then be aware that BGP has a funny idea of what constitutes synchronization where the underlying IGP is link-state like OSPF. For each route, you must have the same BGP rid as the OSPF rid originating the route, otherwise the route will get dropped.

    Kevin Dorrell

    Luxembourg

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.40

    DB:2.40:Intermittant Loss Of Wifi And Internet 9j



    In the past week I have had problems with loss of internet. this being aside from your power loss.

    Even this morning speed test is poor.

    Other problem is one of my laptops loosing its wifi connection temp.

    In discussion with rep at Shaw kiosk in Willowbrook mall, he mentioned that a newer router was available.

    I have the SMC D3GN.

    Can I exchange mine for replacement ?

    *removed*

    Message was edited by: [shaw]matt - Removed Personal Details

    DB:2.40:Intermittant Loss Of Wifi And Internet 9j


    Thanks Colin

    What did you change when you rebooted the router to keep it on line?

    You can call here.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.40

    DB:2.40:Flashing Pixels, Poor Audio And Video zs



    I recently had a short spell where all channels were pausing, pixelated and had choppy audio. I reached out to Shaw via Tiwtter (@shawhelp) and they did something called resetting the cable box from their side. Unplugging and powering off at my end didn't seem to have any effect. After a few minutes, everything was back to normal. It doesn't happen often but if you want to try a few things before Shaw does, they address the issue here: Poor Picture Quality / Pixelation

    DB:2.40:Flashing Pixels, Poor Audio And Video zs


    Thanks for posting instamarv, glad that you were able to utilize the support documents!

    Regards,[shaw]ali

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.39

    DB:2.39:Scenario, Dual Nat For Dual Isps, No Bgp Peering 71



    I have a customer who has a 1720 with wic1 connected Frame to Sprint Using Public address set 1, If that fails there is a 2nd wic with an ISDN bri connected to ISP 2, I can get the ISDN to failover the Frame connection using weighted statics to each ISP gateway BUT I don't know how to get the secondary NAT pool to kickin with the failover. I don't think seperate route maps with separate pools will work due to the source and destination IP addressing won't change, only the intermediate routing would.

    DB:2.39:Scenario, Dual Nat For Dual Isps, No Bgp Peering 71


    Hi. It is easy. You can use route-map to match the interface to decide which pool to use. From http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/iosw/ioft/ionetn/prodlit/1195_pp.htm, it say that 'The dynamic translation command can now specify a route-map to be processed instead of an access-list. A route-map allows the user to match any combination of access-list, next-hop IP address, and output interface to determine which pool to use'.

    Note: I am looking job and can not access Router to practice. So If I am wrong, please let me know. Thanks.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.39

    DB:2.39:Bgp Ttl-Security Hops cm



    hi guys

    i have a strange issue

    when i confugre to bgp hops like bellow

    lo0--R1--OSPF--R2--OSPF--R3--lo0

    R1-----------EBGP--------R3

    i used the command ttl-security hops 3 on both sides

    the bgp session is and established

    the loopbacks advertised in bgp apear in the BGP routing table

    BUT

    dose not apear in the routing table

    in bgp routing table it says that next hope inaceesable

    however the next is accessable

    becuase i can ping, sse it inospf routing

    and the peering is up as well

    same case with ebgp multihops works

    by the way the peering between the EBGP peers through tier loopbacks address

    any idea !!

    DB:2.39:Bgp Ttl-Security Hops cm


    Hello Marwan,

    I've realized later I had suggested a wrong idea.

    you should verify if:

    the BGP next-hop of routes is known in routing table.

    this is the standard check and this has to be there.

    I wonder what additional checks can be done enabling ttl-security on BGP next-hop.

    looking for the number of route-hops to next-hop would require a traceroute and it is unlikely.

    Hope to help

    Giuseppe

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.39

    DB:2.39:Sample Config For Oer Pfr c3



    I am working with Performance Routing (PfR) in a lab environment.

    Would ANYONE be kind enough to provide a known working FULL configuration for either PASSIVE and/or ACTIVE monitoring to include BGP and an IGP.

    Full configuration meaning all the OER statements as well as the IGP, iBGP, eBGP peering and route maps etc.

    And IOS version too.

    Thanks

    Frank

    DB:2.39:Sample Config For Oer Pfr c3


    I am working with Performance Routing (PfR) in a lab environment.

    Would ANYONE be kind enough to provide a known working FULL configuration for either PASSIVE and/or ACTIVE monitoring to include BGP and an IGP.

    Full configuration meaning all the OER statements as well as the IGP, iBGP, eBGP peering and route maps etc.

    And IOS version too.

    Thanks

    Frank

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.39

    DB:2.39:Help With 554 Your Connection From Has Been Rejected Due To Poor Reputation. 1a



    I've recently taken over a newsletter to about 86 people. I send one email out every Wednesday. This week I got a bounce back from all the people with a Shaw email with this attached:

    554 Your connection from ########## has been rejected due to poor reputation.

    Is there a way one can restore ones "reputation"?

    DB:2.39:Help With 554 Your Connection From Has Been Rejected Due To Poor Reputation. 1a


    my emails are not coming from my shaw account, I have my own email server set up with a company called 2Mhost.

    It is that IP-address that is flagged, due to its "reputation", and Shaw is just querying a list of IP-addresses with a bad "reputation". Access 'www.sorbs.net' and enter that IP-address, to check its "reputation".

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.38

    DB:2.38:Internet Router Asr1k - Hardening Qoss, Routing Policies c9



    Hello,

    I'd be grateful if someone could share template or enlighten me on what kind of config I should be applying to an Internet router in terms of hardening and routing policies. These routers will have BGP peering with the ISP. And also have OSPF neighborship with ASA's to redistribute the default route downstream towards the internal network.

    We will be expecting a default route from the ISP with tweaked MED values. We will be advertising out 3 address ranges. We also want to apply QoS inbound so that all external traffic coming inbound does not saturate our 1Gb internet pipe and still leaves enough bandwidth outbound. Obviously I dont want this to effect the BGP peering or the OSPF neighborships upstream and downstream respectively.

    Thank you

    Please rate useful posts remember to mark any solved questions as answered. Thank you.       

    DB:2.38:Internet Router Asr1k - Hardening Qoss, Routing Policies c9


    I built the document. Check it out here https://supportforums.cisco.com/docs/DOC-39394

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.38

    DB:2.38:Wi-Fi In And Out s8



    I have had Shaw wi-fi in home (Airdrie) for less than a month, and it continues to go from full bars to no bars intermittently and consistently throughout the day. It is a wireless router installed and provided by Shaw technician, and located in the basement. That being said, reception even in the basement is poor. We have reset router multiple times.

    DB:2.38:Wi-Fi In And Out s8


    Hello jkjay

    Sorry to hear you are still having troubles. I understand you have decided to try another Internet provider but if you wish to troubleshoot further and have a Shaw technician visit your home please let us know and we will send you a direct message.

    Thanks!

    Heather

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.38

    DB:2.38:F2e - Routing Entries (Tcam) Limit dz



    Hi,

    Please clarify me.

    1. Can I use F2e only N7K chassis to do e-BGP peering? M series is really costly.

    2. F2e has limit with 32K IPv4 routes.

            2.1 What happen if it become full?

            2.2 Would N7K will continue fwd correctly?

            2.3 Could 32001th route be looked up on SUP2e such RIB?

    3. What diff between forwarding decision scheme of CAT6500 (720) with N7K? RIB/FIB/TCAM

    Thk in advance,

    Nipat.p

    DB:2.38:F2e - Routing Entries (Tcam) Limit dz


    Hi,

    Please clarify me.

    1. Can I use F2e only N7K chassis to do e-BGP peering? M series is really costly.

    2. F2e has limit with 32K IPv4 routes.

            2.1 What happen if it become full?

            2.2 Would N7K will continue fwd correctly?

            2.3 Could 32001th route be looked up on SUP2e such RIB?

    3. What diff between forwarding decision scheme of CAT6500 (720) with N7K? RIB/FIB/TCAM

    Thk in advance,

    Nipat.p

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.38

    DB:2.38:Choosing Shaw Alternatives - Customer Feedback On Latest Price Increases xk



    I sent the following to the Shaw Resolution Team via the Customer Advocacy page, and directly to the COO with responsibility for all the services we subscribe to, Jay Mehr.

    Jay Mehr

    Executive Vice President

    Chief Operating Officer

    Shaw Communications

    Dear Jay,

    We've essentially been a Shaw customer since Shaw took over the Rogers assets in the Vancouver area, and, over the years, we've continued to add services and spend more with Shaw than with any other entertainment and telecommunications supplier. In essence we have been the ideal subscriber -- a "loyal" customer.

    That relationship is coming to an end.

    No one enjoys a price increase but the round of price increases about to land on Shaw Internet customers appear to have had the unintended consequence of causing subscribers to take a second look at their Shaw-related entertainment spending. We did, and we didn't like what we found.

    Until December 31 our annual spend with Shaw, exclusive of any pay-for-use content or long distance, is $2014.80. As a direct consequence of the latest 5$ increase to our Broadband 50 subscription, I was motivated to take the time to research alternatives to all of Shaw's services and as a consequence will soon be moving two of our three Shaw services to competitors. Shaw's gross from this account will be reduced to $598.80, a 70% discount in revenue from this subscriber alone. Will we consider dropping our TV subscription too, even though we own Shaw Gateway devices? Yes.

    Clearly a 5$ increase alone was not the final straw which broke the camel's back. For many months I've been looking at our Shaw services bill of $167.90 (more than $2,200 annually including taxes) and have been feeling we were not receiving sufficient value for money paid. The January 1st increase acted as a catalyst or a call to action.

    What could Shaw do better? Internet pricing is simply too high (I pay less to co-locate commercial servers) and the packages are not fine-grained enough. Tying transfer to bandwidth is something the commercial internet industry has long left behind and so should Shaw or at least provide options. Cutbacks to the Shaw Friends program were a mistake. TV subscribers aren't able to purchase a rational channel packages without subscribing to nonsense channels through theme packs.

    Package availability decisions made by marketing cause would-be loyal customers pain. Eventually that pain leads to a decision like ours: Seek Value Elsewhere.

    Our partial move away from Shaw will result in an annual $1476.00 decline in Shaw's revenue from this customer alone, but this isn't a story about customer retribution but of seeking value.

    In search of value we are going elsewhere for phone and internet services, resulting in a $700 annual savings to us. We'll save another $240 by eliminating two Shaw TV theme packs which offer poor value to us. In total we save $1041.05 including taxes. Every year. Very few consumers will object to such savings and I predict many more will learn about how to achieve these savings in the weeks and months to come.

    I must admit to being surprised at the strong reaction Shaw's latest price increase has generated among my co-workers, friends and family. Discussions start easily about the topic and to me this feels like a story with legs but the story isn't about a $5 or $7 increase but about continually reduced value for money over the years.

    I'd stay a Shaw customer if the services were priced appropriately for what we use and if perceived value was in line with the fees we pay. That's simply not the case.

    Regards,

    Michael

    Vancouver BC

    DB:2.38:Choosing Shaw Alternatives - Customer Feedback On Latest Price Increases xk


    Hello sroute and stosser.

    Sorry to hear that you've decided to move some of your services elsewhere. In case either of you would like to discuss account options we have sent you both direct messages, which can be found in your Community Inbox.

    Cheers,

    Noah

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.38

    DB:2.38:Terrible Ping Once Again Returns. jj



    It seems I get a month of good service, then a month of poor service. Can't keep it steady. Now from 6pm-12am I get 150-300 ping to most services and often times have issues loading youtube, or other video streaming websites. (This makes web browsing a hassle and gaming during these hours a non-possibility)

    This is in the cariboo region of BC (Quesnel to be exact). Which is just getting a bit silly... maybe it sounds like a case of first world problems, but it really gets on my nerves when I have to refresh a page 2-3 times to get it to finally load correctly. This happens on /all/ devices not just a certain PC. I can turn off all the computers and use JUST a netflix app on a roku box and have netflix load incredibly slow too. I'm not completely oblivious tech wise so I know to try and isolate an issue by singling out individual things on the network. As I type this right now the only device on my network the PC in which I'm writing this is using a whopping 850~ kbps for music off of spotify and core windows functions (This is according to winpcap to see all the network usage this computer is sending in/out) yet I will get a steady high ping to everything. Heres a screenshot example of how inconsistent it is.

    And yes, I picked things outside of BC because let's be realistic who cares what ping I get to vancouver or kamloops or whatever else. Nothing I would do online is hosted in BC. They're all hosted south of the border. the 52 and 79ms are late late at night/early morning. The rest are the evening when the issues arrise. Now thats just WA, if I try to connect to anything further south or east (LA has lots of popular datacenters, so do places like dallas etc) it easily goes to 200-300+

    The speeds dont bother me, they're fine for the most part even sometimes when I get high ping I'll get at least 20 of my 50mb plan. It's just simply the ping thats the killer. I know this isn't an issue on my end. I've done everything. I've tried every machine independently, I've used only the shaw modem. I've tried using a router with stock firmware in addition to the shaw modem (Which was turned into bridged mode obviously) I've tried custom firmware on the router in addition to the shaw modem. I've entirely reformatted a PC to run it on a fresh windows install and see if the issues are still persisting. I've tried changing my IP address that shaw assigns by spoofing a new MAC address on the router. You name it I've tried it. Every. Single. Time. This is just becoming a case where I post about an issue, shaw magically fixes it for a month then the issue returns. I'm paying for a service that I only get 50% of the time and it's just becoming so tiresome but what can I do, change to telus which is even worse? Short of moving to kanas city in the USA to get google fiber i'm stuck with these issues, lol.

    edit: should note that often times if a page isn't loading or having issues I can just turn on a browser addon for chrome, whatever browser really which acts as a proxy and it will often load first attempt... which once again alludes to more routing issues. Same issues shaw always seems to encounter. I haven't bought a VPN this time around like I have last time. I shouldn't have to pay for a VPN along side my internet just to use my internet properly.

    DB:2.38:Terrible Ping Once Again Returns. jj


    Hi there dmirage,

    Thanks for listing all of the troubleshooting you've done on your side already, I can see you've already put in a lot of time trying to diagnose the problem. Before anything else I'd like to take a look from our end to see if anything looks unusual, I'll be sending a direct message to your Community Inbox that you can reply to with your account information.

    Thanks,

    Jeff

    Community Moderator

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.38

    DB:2.38:Ibgp Sessions 19



    Hii...

    I hav a small query regarding ibgp session, possibly an awkard question but i got to clear this doubt from all the champs out there.

    Y is ibpg peering required between 2 internal routers connected to ISP's(say 2 isp's).in case one of the ebgp path is inaccessibe,the first router needs to use the second internal router to move thru second isp via second ebgp link...but then wouldnt an internal routing protocol other than ibgp suffice for this?

    Thanks in advance!!!!

    DB:2.38:Ibgp Sessions 19


    Yes but as Rick mentioned BGP carries attributes like AS path Origin Code and so on

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.38

    DB:2.38:Poor Shaw Peering/Routing. 1p



    ever since i signed up with shaw my ping to eastcoast have been extremely inconcistent, because shaw is retarted enough to rout my east coast traffic through edmonton most of the time adding 40ms to my ping because the shaw is to stupid to peer with companies like level 3 and hurricane electric, there choosing to move traffic through there own lines, even if it adds mass amount of latency, if my traffic could stop going through edmonton all together i will be happy, if not i will be leaving shaw in may and switching to TSI as they do peer with much better companies and switching to them would remedy the problem shaw is creating by trying to save money.. every single ip i can throw at a TSI west user gets better response times, EVERY SINGLE IP, not just some!

    here are traceroutes from me to texas, most of the time it goes through edmonton, but im showing other paths aswell so show how much faster they would be. i have also been told my shaw employee's this happens because shaws old HQ is in edmonton, this is not acceptable. screw edmonton. my traffic should NEVER go there. and it WILL NOT go there pointlessly through any other canadian isp's so this is a SHAW PROBLEM

    here is through Edmonton to Houston.C:\Users\Connortracert 204.2.20.30

    Tracing route to phonoscope-204-2-20-030.phonoscope.com [204.2.20.30]over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms router.asus.com [192.168.1.1]2 * * * Request timed out.3 20 ms 15 ms 19 ms 64.59.156.2434 18 ms 15 ms 15 ms rc2bb-tge0-4-0-16.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.69.218]5 33 ms 31 ms 31 ms 66.163.75.2026 30 ms 32 ms 31 ms rc1we-hge0-4-0-0.ed.shawcable.net [66.163.70.66]

    7 63 ms 51 ms 43 ms rc3sc-tge0-0-0-9.wp.shawcable.net [66.163.78.70]

    8 73 ms 78 ms 75 ms rc3ec-tge0-11-0-13.il.shawcable.net [66.163.78.50]9 72 ms 74 ms 75 ms xe-0-6-0-2.r05.chcgil09.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [128.242.186.169]10 72 ms 73 ms 76 ms ae-6.r21.chcgil09.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.2.26]11 96 ms 98 ms 93 ms ae-3.r21.dllstx09.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.2.200]12 98 ms 108 ms 98 ms ae-0.r20.dllstx09.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.2.58]13 104 ms 99 ms 113 ms ae-3.r04.hstntx01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.5.226]14 116 ms 108 ms 100 ms bbr1.phonoscope.com [128.241.5.5]15 125 ms 103 ms 116 ms phonoscope-204-2-20-030.phonoscope.com [204.2.20.30]Trace complete.

    next is through Calgary to Dallas

    tracert 108.61.239.220

    Tracing route to 108.61.239.220.choopa.net [108.61.239.220]over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms router.asus.com [192.168.1.1]2 * * * Request timed out.3 18 ms 15 ms 15 ms 64.59.156.2434 18 ms 15 ms 14 ms rc2bb-tge0-13-0-4.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.69.81]5 17 ms 23 ms 23 ms rc2wh-tge0-6-0-3.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.69.174]6 25 ms 27 ms 29 ms rc2so-tge0-5-0-0.cg.shawcable.net [66.163.77.22]

    7 41 ms 43 ms 44 ms 66.163.75.1228 56 ms 57 ms 57 ms rc3ec-tge0-11-0-15.il.shawcable.net [66.163.77.202]9 60 ms 86 ms 59 ms equinix.xe-1-3-0.cr2.ord1.us.nlayer.net [206.223.119.61]10 57 ms 61 ms 62 ms ae3-60g.cr1.ord1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.111.153]11 83 ms 80 ms 84 ms xe-3-3-0.cr1.dfw1.us.nlayer.net [69.22.142.5]12 84 ms 85 ms 81 ms as20473.xe-5-1-2.cr1.dfw1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.63.238]13 * * * Request timed out.14 * * * Request timed out.15 * * * Request timed out.16 * * * Request timed out.17 * * * Request timed out.18 * * * Request timed out.19 * * * Request timed out.20 * * * Request timed out.21 * * * Request timed out.22 * * * Request timed out.23 83 ms 83 ms 83 ms 108.61.239.220.choopa.net [108.61.239.220]

    last but not least San Jose to Houston.

    tracert 209.62.1.2

    Tracing route to ev1s-209-62-1-2.theplanet.com [209.62.1.2]over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms router.asus.com [192.168.1.1]2 * * * Request timed out.3 18 ms 20 ms 15 ms 64.59.156.2434 24 ms 14 ms 15 ms rc2bb-tge0-13-0-1.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.69.49]5 46 ms 51 ms 50 ms rc3sj-tge0-8-1-0.cl.shawcable.net [66.163.78.126]6 43 ms 73 ms 38 ms te1-7.bbr01.eq01.sjc01.networklayer.com [206.223.116.176]7 43 ms 35 ms 37 ms ae7.bbr02.eq01.sjc02.networklayer.com [173.192.18.165]8 47 ms 43 ms 49 ms ae0.bbr02.cs01.lax01.networklayer.com [173.192.18.151]9 53 ms 53 ms 55 ms ae7.bbr01.cs01.lax01.networklayer.com [173.192.18.166]10 76 ms 79 ms 81 ms ae19.bbr01.eq01.dal03.networklayer.com [173.192.18.140]11 85 ms 83 ms 85 ms ae0.bbr01.sr02.hou02.networklayer.com [173.192.18.219]12 86 ms 92 ms 89 ms po31.dsr02.hstntx2.networklayer.com [173.192.18.235]13 80 ms 83 ms 80 ms te4-1.car14.hstntx2.networklayer.com [74.55.252.222]14 84 ms 79 ms 79 ms ev1s-209-62-1-2.theplanet.com [209.62.1.2]

    Trace complete.

    DB:2.38:Poor Shaw Peering/Routing. 1p


    Hi connormc

    I'd like to get in touch with your through your Community Inbox, as we've been in contact with you before regarding your concerns.

    Thanks

    Matt

    Community Mod

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.38

    DB:2.38:Bgp Peering In Privateip Mpls - Cpe-To-Pe Only? Or Also Cpe-To-Cpe? d7



    Maybe a dumb question, but I'm not very experienced with BGP (yet).

    We are implementing multi-site Private IP MPLS. We are peering to the providers equipment using BGP.

    Do we also need to configure all our other routers as BGP neighbors of each other? Or does each only need to have the provider's router configured as a neighbor?

    The reason this is coming up, we first configured only the Provider as the BGP neighbor, but we didn't see our internal routers propagate. When setting up our own routers as neighbors of each other we now see our routes, but in some cases we are introducing routing loops between the PE and CPE routers.

    DB:2.38:Bgp Peering In Privateip Mpls - Cpe-To-Pe Only? Or Also Cpe-To-Cpe? d7


    Jon, sorry for the late reply. Thank you for the detailed info! Now that I've sorted out my route redistribution everything is working great with just the peer between the PE and CPE.

    Thanks very much for the help!

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.37

    DB:2.37:Clarification Required On Use Of Bgp Update-Source Command? ad



    Can someone clarify on the use of BGP update-source?

    My understanding was that BGP uses the IP address configured on the physical interface directly connected to the BGP peer as the source address when it establishes a BGP peering session.

    You would therefore typically use the "update-source" command, for example, in a case where you may have multiple paths to the peer and wish to use the loopback address as the source so that the loss of the physical link does not affect your peering.

    But if I have one physical link to my provider (ISP2) and peer with his BGP devices, the update-source by default would be this particular physical link to them?  And if that link went down, so too would my BGP peering with them? (no matter if I have another BGP router with a peering session to a different provider, ISP1) i.e. I don't need to explicitly define this physical link as an "update-source", that would be the default behaviour anyway?

    Do I have that correct?

    The reason I ask is that my provider (while looking into an issue which I believe is unrelated anyway) states that I SHOULD explicitly define the physical interface as an "update source" because, he states: "If the circuit between you and I goes down but the peering loopback address is still reachable via your other transit providers then the bgp peering will attempt to come up. (it will then go down again because our side will have a different peering address to your update source)

    In this case you have not defined an "update source" so you will attempt to reach our loopback by following the route to our loopback in the routing table. The update source will therefore change from the direct connection to an internal interface.

    For example if the interface is down, any static will go down, and the default route will be followed"

    I was previously under the impression that it wouldn't make any difference whether I define the "update-source" as the physical interface or not - can someone clarify?

    e.g. if I have a router config something like this with my router (physical interface 1.1.1.2) peering with ISP2's peers (7.7.7.3 and 7.7.7.4) over the one physical link (gig0/0) and static routes to those peer addresses:

    interface Loopback0

    ip address 5.5.5.100 255.255.255.255

    !

    interface GigabitEthernet0/0

    description *** Physical connection to ISP ***

    ip address 1.1.1.2 255.255.255.252

    !

    interface GigabitEthernet0/1

    description *** internal interface 1 ***

    ip address 5.5.5.181 255.255.255.252

    !

    interface GigabitEthernet0/2

    description *** internal interface 2 ***

    ip address 5.5.5.197 255.255.255.252

    !

    router bgp 65001

    no bgp fast-external-fallover

    network 5.5.5.0 mask 255.255.255.0

    network 1.1.1.0 mask 255.255.255.252

    !

    neighbor 7.7.7.3 remote-as 65004

    neighbor 7.7.7.3 ebgp-multihop 5

    neighbor 7.7.7.4 remote-as 65004

    neighbor 7.7.7.4 ebgp-multihop 5

    !

    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 1.1.1.1

    ip route 7.7.7.3 255.255.255.255 1.1.1.1

    ip route 7.7.7.4 255.255.255.255 1.1.1.1

    !

    Then my provider would say I should add the lines:

    neighbor 7.7.7.3 update-source gi0/0

    neighbor 7.7.7.4 update-source gi0/0

    Whereas my understanding would be that this is what would happen in any case so there isn't actually a need to specify the "update-source gi0/0" and it wouldn't make any difference operationally in this scenario?  (I appreciate there is no harm in specifying it but just wondered if it would indeed make any difference?)

    DB:2.37:Clarification Required On Use Of Bgp Update-Source Command? ad


    Hi John/Harold,

    thanks - that's what I was thinking but it is nice to have some confirmation!  

    The address they have for us is our physical address of Gi0/0 (so in the example I gave it would be 1.1.1.2) though I believe the peer addresses that they have given us to peer with at their end are their loopback addresses.

    The router itself isn't multihomed but the "Internal interfaces" I have shown connect to a couple of switches and then to another router which is peering with another provider, ISP1

    I think ISP2's argument seems to be that, since we haven't specified the physical interface as the "update-source" it would be theoretically possible for ISP2's BGP peer loopback addresses to be available via our other provider (ISP1) and we might thus attempt to peer with them via that route if the physical interface to them went down. My view is that this is either highly unlikely or simply not possible, even with the existing configuration and therefore specifying the "update-source" is irrelevant.

    As I say, this came up during discussions over another problem with our provider and my belief is that this sort of thing they are mentioning is just "noise" which is getting in the way of dealing with the core issue we are having with them rather than actually helping to resolve anything! I guess that's all part of the fun in working with service providers though!

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.37

    DB:2.37:Bgp - Public And Private As Peering 3x



    Hi All,

    What are the typical challenges in peering between Public and Private AS numbers

    Thanks

    NK

    DB:2.37:Bgp - Public And Private As Peering 3x


    The main thing is to remove the private ASN before propagating the updates to the rest of the Internet.

    Please refer to the following document for more information:

    http://www.ciscotaccc.com/kaidara-advisor/iprout/showcase?case=K20870214

    Regards,

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.37

    DB:2.37:Fast Netflix cp



    Anyone seeing particularly good Netflix quality, esp. in the NY area? After a recent day of poor quality everything, now my Netflix is better than ever. Maybe the peering issues are beginning to be resolved?

    DB:2.37:Fast Netflix cp


    Use the unlocator.com DNS. Is free (for now, beta stage).

    With it I get consistent 3000kbps, all the time, from Netflix. With Verizon DNS (automatic) I get 340-500kbps in the same period (evening).

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.37

    DB:2.37:Bad Routes For Hurricaneelectric (He.Net) In Seattle aj



    I have a couple servers hosted with a provider that primarily uses HurricaneElectric (HE.NET - AS6939). Where I normally see 13-15ms pings to Seattle via other Shaw peers like TiNet/NTT, I'm seeing 40-60ms to hit a box via HE's network.

    I also use HurricaneElectric's IPv6 TunnelBroker and their Seattle gateway. Here's my traceroute to the Seattle IPv6-4 gateway:

    traceroute to 216.218.226.238 (216.218.226.238), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
    1 10.0.1.1 (10.0.1.1) 2.879 ms 0.780 ms 0.684 ms
    2 * * *
    3 rd3bb-tge0-8-2-0-1.vc.shawcable.net (64.59.148.129) 9.030 ms 12.281 ms 9.002 ms
    4 66.163.72.217 (66.163.72.217) 11.051 ms
    66.163.74.101 (66.163.74.101) 11.349 ms
    66.163.72.241 (66.163.72.241) 11.932 ms
    5 30gigabitethernet2-1.core1.pao1.he.net (198.32.176.20) 58.944 ms 51.218 ms 48.762 ms
    6 10ge3-1.core1.sjc2.he.net (72.52.92.70) 41.178 ms 39.438 ms 32.761 ms
    7 10ge12-1.core1.sea1.he.net (72.52.92.158) 34.149 ms 50.609 ms 48.754 ms
    8 tserv1.sea1.he.net (216.218.226.238) 41.320 ms 41.948 ms 46.194 ms

    Instead of a direct route, it's going through Palo Alto. I spoke with a rep at HE.net via their support forum, see thread here: Seattle POP - Shaw Cable peering

    Shaw peers with HE at SIX but some routes are getting screwed up along the way. I was wondering if someone in your network operations could take a look and see if a simple change could be made to make the routes more efficient.

    Cheers,

    Michael

    DB:2.37:Bad Routes For Hurricaneelectric (He.Net) In Seattle aj


    I use HE as an IPv6 tunnel broker and DNS. I hadn't looked at a traceroute lately from Calgary. Thank your lucky stars that you don't see this!

    1 * * *

    2 rc2so-tge0-13-0-15-1.cg.shawcable.net (64.59.132.105) 10.357 ms 10.686 ms 10.709 ms

    3 rc2nr-tge0-0-0-8.wp.shawcable.net (66.163.77.26) 27.879 ms rc2nr-tge0-0-0-11.wp.shawcable.net (66.163.77.2) 27.308 ms rc2nr-tge0-0-0-22.wp.shawcable.net (66.163.75.254) 27.320 ms

    4 66.163.76.22 (66.163.76.22) 47.790 ms 47.800 ms 47.850 ms

    5 rc1hu-pos0-2-0-0.ny.shawcable.net (66.163.76.54) 62.590 ms 62.574 ms 62.516 ms

    6 10gigabitethernet1-2.core1.nyc6.he.net (198.32.160.61) 60.796 ms 58.523 ms 64.284 ms

    7 10ge4-1.core1.nyc4.he.net (184.105.222.81) 64.271 ms 60.954 ms 60.898 ms

    8 100ge7-2.core1.chi1.he.net (184.105.80.37) 65.020 ms 65.608 ms 65.609 ms

    9 100ge13-1.core1.msp1.he.net (184.105.223.178) 65.902 ms 73.908 ms 72.260 ms

    10 100ge9-1.core1.sea1.he.net (184.105.223.193) 78.136 ms 78.161 ms 72.978 ms

    11 tserv1.sea1.he.net (216.218.226.238) 70.888 ms 70.823 ms 76.325 ms

    From Calgary looks like it heads out east via Winnipeg to NYC and then back to Seattle via Chitown. I wonder why Shaw doesn't route west to Vancouver in this case.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.37

    DB:2.37:Bgp Trough Pix With Doing Conditional Routing 1a



    Can somwone help me with this :

    R3 and r4 is in different AS..

    Loopback 1 is on r3, and r4 do not have the net in the routing table anyhow, so I guess the config needs to be on r3,., I have never done this kind of config, so unsure of what to do. There are a pix between them

    R3 Loopback 1 is : 10.10.11.11

    R3 looback 0 is : 10.10.1.1

    R4 loopback 0 is 10.10.2.2

    There are ospf routes to pix, and static routes to r3 loopback0 on r4

    I have this topology :

    R3(ospf)------------------(ospf)pix------------------------r4

    R3 should only learn bgp routes from r4 if loopback 1 of R3 is up..

    How would I do this..r3 loopback 0 is peering with R4's loopback 0

    Please, i am lookiing for some config example

    DB:2.37:Bgp Trough Pix With Doing Conditional Routing 1a


    Try this (and read the manual)

    on R3

    neighbor 10.10.2.2 advertise-map ADV exist-map EXIST,

    where route-map ADV defines the routes to adv

    and route-map EXIST defines R3's loopback.

    A_a

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.37

    DB:2.37:Shaw Go Apps a9



    Are the Shaw Go apps Chromecast ready?

    DB:2.37:Shaw Go Apps a9


    We haven't ported any of our apps over to Chromecast. I know that Shomi will be available to Chromecast early next year. But as for our other apps, no word on when or if yet.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.37

    DB:2.37:Another Old Problem Returns d8



    Tonight I was watching a recording of the good wife. At 42 minutes into the show I was booted to live TV. I thought this problem was fixed in the last firmware.

    When, if ever will shaw get their act together and fix this PVR or offer compensation to the poor suckers that bought it.

    DB:2.37:Another Old Problem Returns d8


    Interesting, I'll record the next few episodes of that and see what happens at my end.

    Cheers

    Ali

    Community Moderator

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.37

    DB:2.37:Configuring Ipv6 Bgp Peering With Peer-Group Command 8x


    Table of Contents

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.36

    DB:2.36:Cbc Radio 1 And 2 cj



    The transmission quality of these stations is a disgrace.

    The sound quality of Radio 2 is far too compressed and has a lot of distortion - the sound is pretty awful.

    Radio 1 is untunable and unlistenable

    To give our national Radio service such poor support is absolutely pitiful.

    Shaw is stealing bandwidth from stations that are really worth listening to and giving them to reality TV and other programs of questionable merit.

    You say there is little support for these programs but one of the reasons is that SHAW is not supporting them

    Shaw is catering to the lowest common denominator, delivering crapTV and lousy american programming and turning its back on our treasured national radio provider.

    DB:2.36:Cbc Radio 1 And 2 cj


    Hi kitsilanite,

    Since you're noticing issues with TV reception also, there is a good chance that the audio quality on the FM stations is related to this as an overall signal quality problem. That's something we can get fixed up for you, I will be sending you a direct message so please check your Community Inbox.

    Jeff

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.36

    DB:2.36:Outgoing Bgp Routing Information 9p



    If I wanted to know what routes local BGP peer sends to remote BGP peer, I would use "sh ip bgp neighbor a.b.c.d advertised-routes". Unfortunately, this does not really show what exactly is sent: for example if you adjust MED with route map, the "advertised-routes" command does not show it; also it does not show confederation sub-AS numbers converted to real AS when peering with external peer.

    Is there way to really know what one is sending out via BGP?

    DB:2.36:Outgoing Bgp Routing Information 9p


    The display shows the routes from the local BGP table that you would advertise to your peers...so they don't have the outgoing policies applied. :-(

    There has been a request to add the functionality you want for a while: CSCds64118. To expedite the process, have your account team talk to the routing PM about it.

    Regards,

    Alvaro.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.36

    DB:2.36:Bgp And Nat On The Same Router z7



              Hi

    I have a BGP session with the ISP and am receiving the entire routing feed. I also need to turn on NAT on the same router. As soon as I apply "ip nat outside" on the WAN interface and NAT an IP statically with the WAN interface (same as BGP peering IP) the BGP goes down.

    I understand that this because the in the IOS order of operation NAT comes before BGP. Can someone help me find a solution where I can do BGP and NAT on the same router?

    Regards

    Abhi

    DB:2.36:Bgp And Nat On The Same Router z7


    Hi Jon

    I actually need to NAT a pool of private IPs to a pool of public IPs. But for testing, as of now I tried the NATing a single private IP with the WAN IP.

    ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.5 gigabitethernet 0/1

    I need to know conceptually if the problem is NAT on the same interface/IP as the BGP peering WAN interface/IP and would it get resolved if I use a pool of IPs which are different from the WAN IP.

    Yes, that is the problem. You are saying with your NAT statement anything going to the gi0/1 IP address should be natted to 192.168.1.5 and that would cover the BGP port as well.

    Like i say you could be more specific with your NAT statements with ports.

    However if you have a spare number of public IPs then yes it would make more sense to use these rather than the WAN IP.

    Note, if you are simply using the WAN IP to PAT internal IPs then you could probably use it and still form the BGP neighborship but your statement "ip nat inside source ..." is not PAT it is a one-to-one mapping which covers all ports.

    Jon

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.36

    DB:2.36:Bgp Peering Question 98



    When peering with another router within the same AS# (iBGP) is it best practice to use the remote serial interface or L0?

    When peering with a different AS# (eBGP) is it best practice to use L0 addresses and why?

    Thanks in advance.

    DB:2.36:Bgp Peering Question 98


    David

    I believe that the discussion given by Nicholas is correct. I might phrase the discussion in a slightly different way, but the conclusion is quite the same.

    For IBGP neighbors they are both routers within the same enterprise network. Within an enterprise network there are likely to be viable alternate paths that connect the peers. With viable alternate paths it makes very good sense to peer using the loopback interfaces since if the interface currently being used to reach the peer should happen to fail, the neighbor relationship can survive since there is still viable IP connectivity to the peer address on the remote router when peering with loopback addresses. But if you peer with a physical interface for IBGP and if the physical interface goes down then the BGP peer will fail even if there is an alternate path that gets to the remote peer, because there is no path to the peer address.

    For EBGP neighbors they are both routers in different enterprise networks and there is much less possibility that there is a viable alternate path that connects the BGP peers. In this case it is more common to peer via physical interface since peering to the loopback introduces complications ( how does router A know how to get to the loopback of router B since they will be in separate networks?) and does not offer much advantage.

    HTH

    Rick

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.36

    DB:2.36:Ibgp - Rr ac



    Based on attached diagram, R1 peer with RR1 via directly connect interface, R2 peer with RR2 via directly connected interface.

    If the interface, eg R1 to RR1 interface is down, then R1 will no longer any BGP routes.

    What if I iBGP peer R1 and R2 via their back to back interface ? So when interface between R1 and RR1 is down, R1 can still learned BGP route from R2.

    My concerned is iBGP peering between R1 and R2 caused routing loop?

    Regards

    DB:2.36:Ibgp - Rr ac


    Hi,

    sorry for interference,

    If you like to apply the route reflector, it is one command on router R1: (I am not sure if your router R1 or R2 are route-reflector capable) but try this if you want on the router R1

    router bgp xxx

    neighbor IP_ADDRESS_RR1 route-reflector-client

    As your diagram shows, configuring only one router either R1, or R2 as a route-reflector is enough to solve the IGP propagation in case of link down.

    Regards,

    Sayed

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.36

    DB:2.36:Does Ibgp Direct Peering Needed For Vpnv4 Routes To Be Advertised? c7



    Hi every one.im in situation that i have 3 routers.

    R1--R2--R3

    R1 and R2 are ibgp peer also R2 is ibgp peer with R3 .my under laying routing protocol is OSPF and im running MPLS between these routers.I have VPNA on R1 and also i have activated peers for extended communities to enabling MP-BGP between routers.when i do show ip bgp vpnv4 unicast all on R2 i can see VPNA routes received from R1 but when i do this show command on R3  there is nothing but if i Peer R3 to R1 using iBGP  THE VPNA routes shows on R3 too.so i have this question, Does this thing mean that for receiving vpnv4 routes on R3 I have to configure iBGP between R3 and R1, so R2 cant carry these routes to R3? Thanks.

    DB:2.36:Does Ibgp Direct Peering Needed For Vpnv4 Routes To Be Advertised? c7


    Hello Blackhat2020,

    yes VPNv4 routes are under the iBGP rules too so or you build an iBGP full mesh or you make the router in the middle route reflector server

    note: this can be done at address-family level with

    on R2:

    router bgp xx

    neigh R1:loop0 remote-as xx

    neigh R1:loop0 update-source loop0

    neigh R3:loop0 remote-as xx

    neigh R3:loop0 update-source loop0

    address-family vpnv4

    neigh R1:loop0 activate

    neigh R1:loop0 send-community extended

    neigh R1:loop0 route-reflector-client

    neigh R3:loop0 activate

    neigh R3:loop0 send-community extended

    neigh R3:loop0 route-reflector-client

    use for iBGP loopbacks addresses advertised in your routing protocol and that are also used as LDP router-ids

    Hope to help

    Giuseppe

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.36

    DB:2.36:Couple Questions Regarding Non-Directly-Connected Ibgp Peering 79



    Hi All,

    I have a couple of questions regarding BGP peering non-directly-connected routers.  I’ve drawn up and attached a small lab to help me convey the questions:

    In the drawing, I have iBGP sessions on AS 1 between R1, R2, R3 R4.  Assume it is partial mesh at the moment (I know we have to fix that).  

    R6 in AS 2 is eBGP peered to R1 in AS 1.  R6 is advertising the 151.216.0.0/16 subnet to R1 in AS 1.

    When R3 receives this route, it does not pass it to R4 because of the rule stating that iBGP routers will not forward routes learned via iBGP to another iBGP peer. 

    Therefore, R4 doesn’t know how to reach 151.216.0.0/24. I want to fix this by peering R4 to R2, which is where my questions begin:
    I know the preferred method of non-directly-connected peering is loopback-to-loopback, but if I wanted to use the IP Addresses on the physical ports on R4 R2 instead (10.10.10.1 20.20.20.1), could I do that successfully?If so, I have read that when peering non-directly-connected BGP neighbors, you need to first confirm connectivity exists between the near-end and far-end, which is usually done via static routes.  However, since R3 knows about the 20.20.20.0 10.10.10.0 networks via directly-connected, there are BGP sessions on all the routers on the path, wouldn’t that negate the need for further routing configs in addition to the BGP sessions?Inversely, if I decided to perform the peering from loopback-to-loopback as per the recommendation, then I think I WOULD need static routes, since R3 doesn’t already know about R2 R4’s loopback networks and if injected into BGP,  R3 wouldn’t be able to forward that info to R2/R4 since it came from an iBGP neighbor already, correct?
    Or am I off base and will need the static routes regardless if I use physical interface IP addresses or loopback addresses to peer?

    Lastly, I know a better solution is to run RR’s or Confeds, but for the sake of the concept, assume those aren’t options for me if you would.

    Thanks Guys!

    DB:2.36:Couple Questions Regarding Non-Directly-Connected Ibgp Peering 79


     

    Hi Alain,

    Thanks for replying. That definitely makes sense.

     

    Hi Jon,

    You're right.  I just noticed I had R1 in there after reading your comment. I meant to draw it up without that 3rd router on the bottom segment.  But yeah, I'm with ya, the way it is drawn you are right.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.36

    DB:2.36:Outgoing Email Message: Connection Rejected Due To Poor Reputation. kp



    We use an email to inform our client list of news from our company. Now all my outgoing email is being blocked by Shaw with the 'bad reputation' message. Our list is extensive, multiple thousands. Is Shaw saying that I can not longer communicate with my customers this way? If this is the case it looks like we are going to have to check around for another service for our internet, telephone and cable. We have been very pleased with Shaw up to this point but unless there is a solution to this problem . . .

    DB:2.36:Outgoing Email Message: Connection Rejected Due To Poor Reputation. kp


    You can find your IP by going to this site - What Is My IP Address?

    Then enter it at Spamhaus and see if it registers on the blacklist.

    If it is your IP that is banned, log into webmail and see if you can send your newsletter from there.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.36

    DB:2.36:Bgp Conditional Advertisement 3m



    Hi,

    We are constructing a new network for our datacentres. We plan to have two peering points with the facilites being connected to each. Each peering router will run BGP and EIGRP. The datacentre routers will only run EIGRP. I plan to inject a default route from each peering router into eigrp. The datacentre routers will be configured to load balance accross the two received defaults from the peering routers. To enable me to disable bgp anouncements of unreachable networks from the peering routers, ie if the worst happens and the router looses all connections except its ebgp links I want it to stop advertising the unreachable network(s) to the world at large. To do this it looks like I need to use conditional advertisement. The documentation seems to suggest that conditional advertisement is based on what networks are in the bgp routing table. Thus to get networks in the data centre that would only be in the eigrp table would I need to redistribute eigrp into bgp? I have attached a quick pdf sketch to help get the idea of the layout.

    DB:2.36:Bgp Conditional Advertisement 3m


    Dear richard ,

    Thats what we all say ,

    If you loose your routes in routing table BGP wont advertise them so u need not worry . nothing special has to be configured.

    rate if helps .

    TC

    prs

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.36

    DB:2.36:Hub Spoke Vrf Routing Question z8



    I have a Hub and Spoke MPLS VPN topology, meaning spoke to spoke traffic MUST pass through the hub. : I need to have 2 Hubs: HUB1 and HUB2 HUB1 will be primary for spoke-A, secondary for spoke-B HUB2 will be primary for spoke-B, secondary for spoke-A HUB1 and HUB2 will have an eBGP peering link external to the MPLS cloud for failover purposes. All sites will have unique AS #'s. : HUB1 will connect to PE1 HUB2 will connect to PE2 Spoke-A and Spoke-B will connect to PE3 : In a Hub and Spoke topology I know I need an ingress egress vrf on each HUB CE-PE peering pair as this is what forces spoke-to-spoke traffic to flow through the hub. : If I want PRIMARY traffic flows of Spoke-A to HUB1 Spoke-B to HUB2, do I need one (1) additional vrf (total of 3 vrf's) on the HUB CE-PE peering pair to support the "Load Sharing" topology or 2 additional vrfs (total of 4) per peering pair (HUB PE-CE) or can I do this with just the two vrfs (1 ingress vrf 1 egress vrf) already configured? : Examples would be great!!!! :) Thanks again! Frank

    DB:2.36:Hub Spoke Vrf Routing Question z8


    Hey Varma,

    Yes I like your idea better as it is a cleaner solution, setting the looping prefixes to a lower LP, thus will prevent the looping in the first place.

    :

    As far as IPv6, yes everything is the same except for the addresses of course eg. ":" instead of ".".

    :

    I now think I understand why IPv6 is not flapping. When I run the command "sh ipv6 route" on any of the dual stacked boxes, I just happen to notice (just yesterday) none of the IPv6 routes have dates or timestamps associated with them as IPv4 does. Purly an oversite on my part - guess I was focusing on too many other things!

    :

    Best Regards

    Frank

    :

    :

    :

    Hi Varma,

    UPDATE . . . . . . .several hours after configurations updated and implemented

    :

    :

    Turns out, selecting a lower LP on PE3 for spoke routes coming from the hubs (MP-iBGP) causes the original effect of not load sharing the spokes-to-spoke traffic between the hubs.  So I am back to setting the LP for local routes from spokes to 700 in ingress (MP-eBGP) and the spoke routes from the hubs (MP-iBGP) to 500. This works very well and is totally stable. No flapping.

    :

    Also, before playing around with the LP for IPv4 prefixes, as I mentioned a while ago, IPv6 never had problems, BUT now that I changed the LP for IPv4, IPv6 decided to choose a single hub for all traffic. After implementing a very similar fix for IPv6 routes, all is good!! My guess is it's a special IOS feature!!!

    :

    This is how the good traffic is flowing: (there is no bad traffic)

    WAN3 uses HUB2 as the primary path to reach WAN4

    WAN4 used HUB1 as the primary path to reach WAN3

    WAN3 uses HUB2 for 0/0 and ::0

    WAN4 uses HUB1 for 0/0 and ::0

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.36

    DB:2.36:Poor Service sp


    This is my first rant also.
    We have lost the majority of our channels. I had the pleasure of a online chat with a Shaw rep. After completing a reset of the cable box I was told that it would beSat.before someone from Shaw could come out and attempt to repair our situation. 6 Days! Is this the norm? Now I don't know about you but if you cannot "service what you sell" then why are you in Business.("take the money and run" "customer be damned") If you get the chance watch "The Smartest Guys in the Room." It has Shaw written all over it.We switched from Telus to Shaw for home phone and net a few months ago and the service tech installed the equipment and then left without testing anything.Well guess what, the phone didn't work, the cable didn't work nor did the net.After being on the phone for a hour or so with shaw ,I did the installers job and got everything up and running. I cannot put into words how incensed I am with this company.I asked that the Director/Chief or who every is in charge of Maintenance/Service mirage to call me and explain why it takes six days for a repair. I am very sure was/is caused by shaw itself. I guess we will see what happens.

    DB:2.36:Poor Service sp


    Hello padams,

    Thanks for letting us know of your experience. Six days is a long wait for sure. I can't promise anything right now but I'd like to look into this to see if we may be able to do something to expedite that for you. I'll be sending a direct message to your Community Inbox, can you please reply back to the message you'll find there with some additional details?

    Jeff

    Community Moderator

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.36

    DB:2.36:Our Community xk


    It appears that the massive consumer backlash against Usage Based Billing has given Shaw pause. Peter Bissonnette, president of Shaw, has told the Vancouver Sun that flat-rate unlimited plans are an option once again. "We're putting everything on hold," Bissonnette told the Sun in an Interview, going on to add that they won't enforce the caps, and that they would spend the next few months consulting with customers.

    Shaw had received particularly sharp criticism for reducing their already meagre bandwidth caps even further to coincide with the execution of Usage Based Billing. Given that only 10% of Shaw customers exceed their bandwidth caps currently, these new fees would only affect a small portion of the customer base; reducing that bandwidth does seem like a predatory move in the context of UBB.

    Shaw's president has claimed that he doesn't think people have started cancelling their service because of Usage Based Billing. I did. I now have service through TELUS, who despite having bandwidth caps listed on their website has not charged any customers for the consumption of that bandwidth even if they're over and above the set limit.

    It's a shame, really. I enjoyed having Shaw as a provider. Their customer service was excellent, and despite the aged HDTV PVR hardware, it was still a decent viewing experience. When the company announced they were going to engage in Usage Based Billing, I found their decision to be solely profit-oriented and a poor customer relations move.

    If the future sees Shaw with no bandwidth limits and TELUS enforcing limits I may switch back. It's up to Shaw to earn me as a customer again.

    DB:2.36:Our Community xk

    It appears that the massive consumer backlash against Usage Based Billing has given Shaw pause. Peter Bissonnette, president of Shaw, has told the Vancouver Sun that flat-rate unlimited plans are an option once again. "We're putting everything on hold," Bissonnette told the Sun in an Interview, going on to add that they won't enforce the caps, and that they would spend the next few months consulting with customers.

    Shaw had received particularly sharp criticism for reducing their already meagre bandwidth caps even further to coincide with the execution of Usage Based Billing. Given that only 10% of Shaw customers exceed their bandwidth caps currently, these new fees would only affect a small portion of the customer base; reducing that bandwidth does seem like a predatory move in the context of UBB.

    Shaw's president has claimed that he doesn't think people have started cancelling their service because of Usage Based Billing. I did. I now have service through TELUS, who despite having bandwidth caps listed on their website has not charged any customers for the consumption of that bandwidth even if they're over and above the set limit.

    It's a shame, really. I enjoyed having Shaw as a provider. Their customer service was excellent, and despite the aged HDTV PVR hardware, it was still a decent viewing experience. When the company announced they were going to engage in Usage Based Billing, I found their decision to be solely profit-oriented and a poor customer relations move.

    If the future sees Shaw with no bandwidth limits and TELUS enforcing limits I may switch back. It's up to Shaw to earn me as a customer again.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.35

    DB:2.35:Why Host Routes Are Injected On Routers Forming Mp-Bgp Ebgp Peers On Vpnv4 ck



    Hi experts,
     

    I was studying on my lab rack and I was actually playing with DMVPN but suddenly decided to try eBGP peering on VPNv4. I have two DMVPN hubs (R1 and R2) and one spoke (R11). I used dual-home single-VPN design so all the tunnels are in the same subnet 192.168.12.0/24. The devices are having .1, .2 and .11 respectively.
     

    Then I was building BGP peering on the 192.168.12.0/24 subnet. Here is when I found something very interesting. As soon as the VPNv4 peering established, the routers would add a /32 host route of the peer and it is shown as "connected" type.
     

    R1(config-router)#do sh ip route 192.168.12.11

    Routing entry for 192.168.12.11/32

      Known via "connected", distance 0, metric 0 (connected, via interface)

      Redistributing via eigrp 100

      Advertised by eigrp 100

      Routing Descriptor Blocks:

      * directly connected, via Tunnel0

          Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1

     

    R11#sho ip route 192.168.12.1

    Routing entry for 192.168.12.1/32

      Known via "connected", distance 0, metric 0 (connected, via interface)

      Redistributing via eigrp 100

      Advertised by eigrp 100

      Routing Descriptor Blocks:

      * directly connected, via Tunnel12

          Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
     

    Before it was established, it is shown correctly as the /24 route
     

    R1#sh ip route 192.168.12.11

    Routing entry for 192.168.12.0/24

      Known via "connected", distance 0, metric 0 (connected, via interface)

      Redistributing via eigrp 100

      Routing Descriptor Blocks:

      * directly connected, via Tunnel0

          Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
     

    Here is with debug. As you can see the route is injected as soon as the peering is formed
     

    *Jun 19 20:43:23.539: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 192.168.12.11 Up

    R1(config-router-af)#

    *Jun 19 20:43:23.540: RT: updating connected 192.168.12.11/32 (0x0):

        via 0.0.0.0 Tu0
     

    *Jun 19 20:43:23.540: RT: add 192.168.12.11/32 via 0.0.0.0, connected metric [0/0]

    *Jun 19 20:43:23.566: RT: updating eigrp 192.168.12.1/32 (0x0):

        via 192.168.12.11 Tu0
     

    *Jun 19 20:43:23.566: RT: rib update return code: 17
     

    Any ideas? Thanks!

    DB:2.35:Why Host Routes Are Injected On Routers Forming Mp-Bgp Ebgp Peers On Vpnv4 ck


    It apparently not specific to the DMVPN setup. I have tried building BGP peering between routers on ethernet on vpnv4 address family, and the host route is added as well. Any ideas?

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.34

    DB:2.34:Ipv6 ca



    we have 12410 GSR with PRP2 runinng cisco IOS, as internet gateway, running full internet routing table and peering with 7 internet BGP peers with full internet routing table update,there is high cpu utilization , and now we are planning to run dual stack IPv6/IPv4  on this internet gateway, we are not sure about the performance, please what you advise here,

    DB:2.34:Ipv6 ca


    Hi is the total ipv6 for full Internet routing table now is 6000, is it 0.2 % of the full Internet routing table of ipv4, another question is prp3 ans asr 9006 with 8 giga memory what is the maximum ipv4 size support with good CPU utilization

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.34

    DB:2.34:Vrf Routes To Global Routing Table fk



    In our MPLS environment, we are running internet I a separate network, now I want to merge the networks together, by use the global routing table, for our internet access and peering …

    Our MPLS environment is covering 10 locations where I connect customers, and only 3 locations where I connect to the internet,

    My gold is to route between the VRF and to global routing table, only on the 3 locations where I have internet connectivity, so I don’t have the full intenet routing table on all edge routes.

    Any one, having any good documents covering my issue ?

    /Peter

    DB:2.34:Vrf Routes To Global Routing Table fk


    Hallo,

    My internet gateways are connected to the same edge routers as customers are connected, so if you example would work, it should bee possible to route to a loopback, instead of the seriel interface ..

    My gold is to route customer networks, in one or two routes,

    Know of any good documents, that describes my scenario

    Regards.

    Peter

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.34

    DB:2.34:Latency And Packet Loss On Comcast Networks And Especially At Peering Points sz



    For the past week our Comcast residential service has been awful. Being a network engineer for a small ISP I can see that Comcast is experiencing constant problems with their internal network routing but more often I see packet loss at peering points. Peering points are where Comcast traffic gets switched over to another ISP to get somewhere on the Internet. To get anywhere on the Internet, information usually has to switch between three or more ISPs' networks.

    The routing problems are network wide and the worst most persistent I have ever seen.Our connection often is about unusable. I had to reload this page three times just to get it to load. And this is a Comcast web server!

    I'm not sure if Comcast is having problems with their relationships and connections to their peer networks needed for our traffic to traverse the world wide web or if there is simply lots of problems with Comcast router programming causing all these routing problems.

    We have not seen these issues on any other ISP's Internet connection.

    I reported this to Comcast technical support, but they are only trained to make sure your modem is connected and passing traffic to their network. They are not trained to handle Comcast network wide router problems, which is what is going on and needs to be fixed!

    Message Edited by pcmatt on 03-13-2010 11:42 AMMessage Edited by pcmatt on 03-15-2010 12:29 AM






    Solved
    Go to solution

    DB:2.34:Latency And Packet Loss On Comcast Networks And Especially At Peering Points sz

    Hmmm... Interesting. We've seen some evidence here in the past of sub-optimal routing to/from WAN IP's that are in certain subnets, but they usually show up in therouter's rDNS/geolocation data asBGP routing table issues and not aspacket loss. Whatever.Glad that you got it worked out ! Thank the great internet gods !!

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.34

    DB:2.34:Bgp Notification Received, Configuration Change p7



    Hi,

    We are  monitoring a BGP peering flap for a fraction of seconds approximately every three days for a particular neighbor. We are seeing this behavior consistently for a Month.

    Jun 10 08:55:15.566 NST: bgp[1041]: %ROUTING-BGP-5-ADJCHANGE : neighbor x.x.x.x Down - BGP Notification received, configuration change (VRF: default) Jun 10 08:55:15.565 NST: bgp[1041]: %ROUTING-BGP-5-NBR_NSR_DISABLED_STANDBY : NSR disabled on neighbor x.x.x.x on standby due to BGP Notification received (VRF: default)

    Would like to know what does the error messge indicates  "BGP Notification received, configuration change"

    DB:2.34:Bgp Notification Received, Configuration Change p7


    There might be a clue in the bgp trace on the device that experienced this condition:

    show bgp trace and look around the time of the notification down.

    Depending on what is on the other side, I think that hte investigation is better done on that node as that was the originator of the change hence bringing the peer down.

    This can be as simple as an address family add or remove, things like that. When capabilities of a peer change, they have to bring down the peering since they are only sent in the OPEN message.

    IF it is very periodic, I would also verify and check what might be happening during those time windows, especially on the peer. Maybe there is a config script that could induce things.

    If that peer is an XR device, the bgp trace will be very helpful in that regard.

    If itis an IOS device, then maybe you need to keep running some debug bgp event for around the time that you expect this flap, and a syslog analysis (sh log) around that time for clues.

    xander

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.34

    DB:2.34:Peering Change? d3


    Prior to the network outage around 9:00pmEST on 9/30/03 my traffic would leave Comcast's network through Sprintlink in Philadelphia. Since the outage all traffic has been routing through ATT. Is this a permanent change or the temporary result of problems Sprint may be having? I am located in the South Jersey region.

    Thanks.
    Brian

    DB:2.34:Peering Change? d3

    Prior to the network outage around 9:00pmEST on 9/30/03 my traffic would leave Comcast's network through Sprintlink in Philadelphia. Since the outage all traffic has been routing through ATT. Is this a permanent change or the temporary result of problems Sprint may be having? I am located in the South Jersey region.

    Thanks.
    Brian

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.34

    DB:2.34:Virtual Routing Table In Router 9c



    Hello,

    The network consist of 3 vlans which sits on the core 3750 switch. there is a PE router to which this 3750 should be connected and communicating.

    Following needs to be achieved:-

    1. all three vlans need to be under one single vrf . How do we configure this on the 3750 portion

    2. there needs to be bgp peering between the PE and 3750 for route exchange, how should this configuration be done

    Thanks in advance!

    DB:2.34:Virtual Routing Table In Router 9c


    Hello Suthomas1,

    also the interface to PE node gi0/2 has to be associated to the same vrf RED using the same commands as for the SVI ( remember to retype the IP address because association to a VRF removes the IP address from an interface)

    the configuration of the eBGP session is performed as I have explained in my first post under

    router bgp

    address-family ipv4 vrf RED

    network A.b.c.d mask 255.255.255.0

    neigh x.x.x.x remote-as SP-AS

    You need a network command for each internal Vlan or a redistribute connected

    you can check the state of the BGP session in VRF using

    show ip bgp summary vpnv4 all

    also IP connectivity check has to be performed with

    ping x.x.x.x vrf red

    show ip route vrf RED

    shows the IP routing table for the routing table

    see the VRF lite chapter for complete examples

    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst4500/12.2/31sga/configuration/guide/vrf.html

    Hope to help

    Giuseppe

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.34

    DB:2.34:Stacked 3750g Routing Failover 9p



    Hi Folks,

    Hope all is well. I have a stacked 3750g's that are peering with 2 ISP running BGP (multi-homed). 1 isp is pluged directly on a port on the stack master and the other isp is on a member for redundancy. I also have a 3925 that have 4 connections to the the stacked (2 ports on each switch on the stack) that I use as a back connection peering OSPF with the 3750g.

    I need a little help in understanding how the failover happens on a Stacked 3750g. If the stack master fails, does the routing process drop during the election and then re-establish the peering?

    Thank you in advanced I appreciate any help.

    Best Regards,

    JP

    DB:2.34:Stacked 3750g Routing Failover 9p


    Hi Joe,

    From the StackWise document notes that:
    When one master switch becomes inactive and while a new master is elected, the stack continues to function. Layer 2 connectivity continues unaffected. The new master uses its hot standby unicast table to continue processing unicast traffic. Multicast tables and routing tables are flushed and reloaded to avoid loops. Layer 3 resiliency is protected with NSF, which gracefully and rapidly transitions Layer 3 forwarding from the old to new master node.

  • RELEVANCY SCORE 2.34

    DB:2.34:3800 Isr Questions 7k



    I am looking at the 3800 series ISR as an Internet router for a customer. Can anybody tell me what the maximum recommended/supported routing table size is (from a BGP peering standpoint)? Also, does anybody have any idea what the maximum source routing throughput is for a 3800? I know source routing is processor-intensive but I cannot find any recommended/supported throughputs. The customer has about 10Mbps of traffic between two ISPs and wants to repace a set of Powerlink boxes with a 3800. Thanks!

    DB:2.34:3800 Isr Questions 7k


    I understand that the router is capable of much more throughput than 10Mbps of normal traffic. My question specifically related to source routing since it is much more processor-intensive than destination routing.