|
jwh posted:Like I said, I don't have a 2960 here to poke at, but it doesn't look like it's a layer-3 switch, based on the data sheet. I have a 2960g here and confirm that it does not support any of the EMI images / layer-3 functionality.
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2007 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
InferiorWang posted:Beyond that, any issues you have ran into with it? It's worked fine. I'm running half a dozen vlans; nothing too fancy, but I haven't had any problems either.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2007 22:38
|
|
|
Anjow posted:I had a go with ZTerm and couldn't figure out how to get it to connect - I did enter the settings as specified in the manual but nothing happened. I use ZTerm and a Keyspan USA-19HS on OS X all the time. Really, the only setting you have to change in ZTerm is baud rate to 9600, and you should start seeing output.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2008 07:00
|
|
|
Anjow posted:Could it be anything to do with it having settings for a number to dial and a username/password (which I haven't set yet and didn't enter when I used Tera Term)? Or is there some sort of 'connect' menu item I have to select before it will connect? I just did a test here. I launched ZTerm, choose the Keyspan device to connect to, and then went to the Settings -> Connection menu item, which brings up the connection settings window. I leave everything as is (blank) including phone number, etc., as none of that is useful for this. The only thing I change is the Data Rate from the default of 38400 to 9600, and hit "ok". Come to think about it, there is probably a way to make ZTerm default to 9600 baud, but I never bothered to. Are you sure you have your USB to Serial adapter configured / setup with drivers for OS X? If so, are you sure ZTerm is using it (check in Settings -> Modem Preferences; it should show up in the drop down).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2008 08:11
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Scripting for Routers/Switches. Take a look at clogin from RANCID (http://www.shrubbery.net/rancid/)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2009 21:24
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:Cisco config GUIs are mostly garbage. I've heard the new Security Manager (CSM) is leaps better. For this grade of HW, do it CLI. Seconding the Do it CLI approach. Also, "6509" doesn't tell us enough here - latest IOS for a used sup2 is not the same as what you want to run for a pair of sup720s in a VSS configuration, for example. Also, as you will probably soon learn, especially in the 6500/7600 area, the "latest" software version isn't necessarily the one you want to be using. There are various bugs in various releases, so you probably want to figure out what services and features you are going to be using and then work on figuring out which IOS version will not have critical bugs in those feature areas. Take a look at the c-nsp list for example, search for 6500 or 7600 and read about all the fun bugs and various versions  EDIT: If you are flexible about who you buy from, consider PMing M@ on the SA forums. He's always been good to me. markus876 fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jun 24, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:In this case it's an entirely single-user (myself) one-off application of the technology so I'm not horribly concerned over how well it will scale Wait, if its just for you anyway, why don't you just setup a "vpn/management vlan" and have the router deposit your VPN'd connection to that vlan. Then setup some really basic routing between the subnets on your other vlans such that from the management vlan you can get to and from the handful of other vlans you have configured. You don't have to make everything routable after that or routable to the rest of the world; just routable between the vpn/management vlan you are setting up and the rest of them. Even if the switches in your enclosure aren't L3 switches, you could setup the trunk interface to your router as you were going to anyway, and then setup sub interfaces for each of the vlans on the trunk interface, and then handle the routing there. It doesn't have to be "fast" per se since you only expect to use it from your vpn client. You can use ACLs if you want to keep the various subnets from being able to speak to each other, and limit the communication to just the vpn/management vlan. Maybe I'm missing something here, but that seems like a much easier way to do this if you don't literally need to have an IP address on any of the current vlans.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
CaptainGimpy posted:I'm in the process of requesting resources from ARIN. We're going to be setting up some colo's with their own internet connections, etc. Failover to the colo's will be handled via DNS. Each site will have unique IP addresses and will require ASN's as we'll have multiple ISP's coming in. Request the /22 (or whatever size block you need to give you enough /24s for your sites) with a single ASN - From what you are describing I don't see why you would need different ASNs, and getting a single larger block is more flexible in the future than separate /24s. That being said - do you really need your own IP addresses? If your colos are multi-homed (e.g., you are getting transport from multiple different ISPs) and you want to run BGP with them, you will need an ASN from ARIN, but you don't necessarily need your own IP block. You can just have one of the ISPs delegate you a /24 (the smallest subnet that you can announce to the public internet via BGP) for each of the colos and you can announce it via BGP to all of the ISPs you are connected to. It should be pretty easy to get ARIN to give you an ASN if you have orders with multiple ISPs at the same location, but it may be much harder to justify your IP resource request, so I'd go that route if you just want to get going.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
Anjow posted:It sounds fine then. I'm always told that ARIN are way more relaxed than RIPE anyway, I just don't know in exactly what ways. They are [way more relaxed than RIPE these days], but I figured I would at least suggest that they consider getting space from their ISPs first.. If you already have the 80% util. on the /22, combined with a bunch of contracts with multiple ISPs at different locations I think you should be able to get an allocation from ARIN relatively painlessly. RE sub-assigning blocks to customers, I think that depends on how much of a service provider you are being classified as. Sounds like it doesn't matter much either way with your company structure, but I don't think you'd have problems even if it did.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
Anjow posted:I don't know if you missed my first comment, but this will be from the company I work for. The costs will be that of the line (£20-30/month as any other customer of ours), potentially the cost of the router if I can't sway one for free, and the 3 minutes it takes me to set up the BGP on one of our routers. While I'm sure this sounds like fun and a good idea now, I suggest that you consider not running BGP to your home. When you get down to it, whats the point? So you will setup a private ASN and use a /23... for your house? Just grab a /29 or something from your company and save yourself a lot of trouble and just statically route it. You get a couple of static IPs, and no headaches in the future. And you don't have to buy a router that can speak BGP to receive a default and announce one route.. Remember, BGP is useful when you are dealing with multiple ISPs and you want to have some failover, or you value having provider independence by using your own IP space, you want to try to influence your traffic's path across different ISPs, or you want to do something like anycast with a subnet. But I don't think any of these apply to you, and I can't think of any legitimate reason why you need a /23 routed to your house (which of course you still could do with a simple static route anyway). I'm not trying to ruin the party, but I think you'll be happier long term if you keep it simple.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2012 18:33
|
|