Cisco Application :: Asymmetric Routing Seen In WAE When Using 6500 Switch?
May 23, 2011
When we do self diagnostic test for WAE connected to the 6500 switch i get warning as below. Due to this alert there is no major acceleration benfits by the WAAS
Test WARN [tfo] WARN ASYMMETRIC Asymmetric routing is seen in the device Action: Check router's network configuration and WCCP redirection on the router.usevwa1#
6509 switches has only L2 capability and does not do WCCP redirection. The WCCP re-direction is done by 2821 routers.Is there any command which needs to be given in 6500 switch to solve the issue
I have a Cisco SG 300-20 as the core switch, layer 3. It is 192.168.4.6 on VLAN1 and 192.168.5.1 for VLAN2 (VOIP). All the ports are set in trunk mode. DHCP relay is setup on this switch.
The phones connected into a layer 2, Catalyst 2960-S switch. All ports are set in trunk mode. Default gateway on it is set to 192.168.5.1.
DHCP for both VLANs is provided by a Windows Server 2008 R2 server (the relay IP 192.168.4.15).
There is also an ASA 5510 in the mix which is 192.168.4.1. It has a route added to it for the 192.168.5.0 network to go to the SG 300 (192.168.5.1).
Just the two switches can ping each other on the 192.168.5.x network when I "add vlan 2" to the trunk port that is connected between the SG 300 and the 2960. The phones don't get DHCP on the 2960 switch. And I cannot ping 192.168.5.x from the ASA or anything else on the 192.168.4.x network.
After a bit of reading on intra-vlan routing for the SG 300 switch, I am thinking the SG 300 has to be the "center" of things so I need to make it 192.168.4.1 to be the gateway for both VLANs and change the ASA to 192.168.4.2 for VLAN1, etc. And I really can't do asymmetric routing with this switch.
i have configure new ACE 30 module on top of 6500 core switch , the issues am facing whenver i want to access to https://ACE_IP and after i enter the user name and the password , it's forwared me to the follwoing page: is there anything should i configure to avoid this page ?
I have the requirement to assign an asymmetric bandwith limit to each port on a switch (example: 4Mbps downlink, 1Mbps uplink). I've been searching and found the option to apply policers or srr-queue mechanism to achive this, however this only applies for one direction only as far as I know. Catalyst 2960 familiy is preferred, however if this is not possible, will possibly jump to the 3560X family.
However it doesn't seem to work for my 6500. I know the 6500 uses PFC for QOS but I have no idea how it works. how I can guarantee a vlan 100mbps across a 1gig link?
I have 2 Chassis 6506-E with sup 720. one of them work properly(Switch1) but another(Switc2) not boot form bootdisk and go to ROMMON mode. I Captured IOS from Switch1 with tftp but I cant Copy this image to switch 2 with tftp.
I have a routed interface on a Cisco 6500 Series switch. I am trying to find a way to adjust the tcp mss.To date I have not yet been able to find a way to accomplish this. Is this just not supported?
ON switch 6500 i have configured an interface vlan x and applied policies on inboud and outbound directions as per below: [code] But the problem i am facing is that the policy outbound works ok , but the policy inbound doesnt work at all. specifically it doesnt match anything. [code]
I am going to change a running 6500 switch. I am missing a best pratice doc for changing a cisco switch configuration. My question is if a startup-config has an error (due to typo mistake, or due to comands not supported on latest IOS) and I do copy tftp startup-config then what will happen ? I want to make sure when I do "reload" the switch then it should boot normally with the latest startup config !
I tried many different things to get the accurate answer for my issue. I wanted to know, will i face any connectivity or looping issue in the network if i connect Broacade SAN switch on a cisco 6500 switch.Also need to know to maintain a DATA DOMAIN which SAN switch is better? Cisco or other vendor.
The switch 6500-E is frequently crashing whenever the pm scp process reach 100% .I got it under the command "remote command switch show proce cpu".How to solve the problem. I opened the TAC and the engineer says to upgrade the image12.2(18) sxf.Is there any other work around that would avoid to reimage the switch and reloading.
I'm in the process of upgrading the IOS of our 6500 switch and unfortunately, the images were messed up by other users. Here's the output of show redundancy. [code] would i have any issues if I reload this slave supervisor engine to load the SXI8 IOS?
one of the most widely deployed switches in the world. The "Swiss Army knife of network", can do routing, switching, security, wireless and almost everything that you would want your core switch to do. Remember to use the rating system to let Akshay know if you have received an adequate response.
Akshay might not be able to answer each question due to the volume expected during this event. Remember that you can continue the conversation on the Network Infrastructure sub-community LAN, Switching and Routing discussion forum shortly after the event. This event lasts through July 27, 2012. Visit this forum often to view responses to your questions and the questions of other community members.
We have two 6500 core switches and one(primary) of them is running in VTP transparesnt mode and the other (secondary) one is running in VTP client mode. I would like to change the VTP mode of the second switch to transparent mode. Would it cause any issue. I guess i have to create VLANs onto the switch.
I am planning to migrate the core switch from cisco 3750 to Cisco catalysts 6513 switch. What could be the best approach to minimize the downtime or avoid disrupting the production. I have couple of thoughts, one method is to build the core and then replace the existing core, another option is to build the new switch as the second VTP server and once it recieves all the VTP information then disconnect the old server.
One of my customer had a problem with A/C and the room temperature reached almost 50 C. We came to the site and saved the configuration, took a backup and shutdown the switch.
After the A/C problem is resolved, we tried to power-on the switch .. and we found that it is going to the rommon.
I put "boot" command to boot from the bootdisk, but I am getting the following error:
Code...
I tried to search it, But it is resulting in that most probably it is a hardware failure on the SUP.
I need to connect a 6500 switch with a 4948 switch using 10G optics. On 6500, line card used is WS-X6704-10GE and I am aware that WS-X6704-10GE is a xenpak and 4948 ports are X2. What is the way to make the connection between xenpak and X2 work?
The following discussion is based on cisco cat 6500 switches with two power supplies: p1 and p2. . Both power supplies are running in combined mode .Each power supplies is rated with 500 watts max( I just picked 500 watts for simplicity)Combined mode In combined mode, each power supply provides approximately 83% of its capacity to the chassis. This allows for greater utilization of the power supplies and potentially increased PoE densities
1) Let say our specific 6500 switch's configuration requires 1000 watts. We have two power supplies p1 and p2 ,each with rated power of 500 watts. Both power supplies must operate in combined mode. Will power supplies be able to meet the total load power requirement of 1000 watts?
Here is my understanding :The maximum power delivered by each power supplies is 83 percent of its rated power, assuming power supplies are running in combined mode.
So Maximum power delivered by power supplies
= 83% of p1+ 83% of p2 = 83% of 500 + 83% of 500 = 415 +415 =830 watts
Thus the required load of 1000 watts can not be met by our power supplies in combined mode.
2 )Suppose our switch's switch configuration needs 500 watts. Again our power supplies each rated with 500 watts, are configured for combined mode. How much power is being delivered by each power supply? Is it 83 percent of the total load i.e 500 watts?
I have 2 6504's running HSRP as my core. They are each etherchannel'd to my Datacenter switch (3750 Stack) -- see image below.The problem i a having is with the etherchannel status:
Core1 PO11 status w (waiting) Core2 PO11 status P(bundled)
DC11 PO48 status P -- but only to Core2 - the interfaces to Core1 are suspended. (See attached configuration documents) None of the devices have any information in the logs. I run this same configuration in my central location, but we are running Nexus 7000's. With the 6500's, do I need to split the port channels on the 3750 to allow them to negotiate the etherchannel? If I split the portchannels, are there any concerns? Should I expect to see the etherchannel status as P (Bundled) or H (Hot-Standby)?
Configured Layer 3 portchannel from 6500VSS enabled switch to two different 6500 standalone switch. Configured first ip on VSS switch, second ip on standalone switch1 and third IP on standalone switch2. My question is
1. Will the portchannel be up? 2. If port channel is up, will I able to ping the connected IP's.
I am confused on how acl's respond on normal cisco switch (eg.6500) when applied on respective vlans. this is my scenario:on a 6506, i have 2 main vlans in question: Vlan 100 ( vendor1 - 172.16.100.0/24 ) & Vlan 200 ( vendor2 - 172.16.200.0/24 ). the requirement is,
- vendor1 should be able to access/ping vendor2 end points
- vendor2 should not be able to access/ping vendor1 end points
Now, if i ping from a host 172.16.100.11 in vlan 100 to another host 172.16.200.21 in vlan 200, will i be able to get a successful response ?
We want to get L2 traffic amount (bit/byte) passing through a cisco switch (6500/3560 ...) for a specific VLAN. it can be via SNMP or CLI ...How can we do that?
I have a switch layer 6500 series connected to a firewall, the port configuration between them is layer 2, in another words I do not configure an IP address in the Cisco switch port to conected it in the firewall, but when a apply a policy on firewall it lose communication with others vlans, just the vlan that is connected between the switch and firewall works, attachment the design. I think that is necessary to configure the connection between the firewall and switch as layer 3 ( a port with IP address in the switch), but I would like to know why? The switch is configured with about 10 vlan and it is a inter vlan routing, a default route is configured in the switch where the gateway is the firewall.
In change network topology, we are going to assign PC's Gateway as Switch (3750X) IP Address rather than server IP Address. Currently we have configured all Sytems's Gateway is Internet Server IP Address which we are going to replace with Switch IP as Gateway.Issue is while connecting specific application like team viewer in which application tried to send keepalive message to the live server and in case of switch/router IP as gateway. Connection doesn't established. However it is working fine when Internet Server IP treated as gateway.
I am on a call right now troubleshooting some latency issue. The CPU usage on the sup card is low. Don't see any drops or input errors. I am aware that the switch and its modules have capability limits. Is there command I can run which will tell me if any module is overloaded or if the fabric/backplane is over utilized?My chassis is WS-C6513 and sup card is WS-SUP720-3B.
I came across this Multichassis EtherChannel Features when read about information from Cisco Smart Business Architecture.After checking further, knowing that Cataly stwitch 6500 supports this feature.provide information that beside Catalyst 6500, is there any other model of Catalyst switch can support this feature?
In change network topology, we are going to assign PC's Gateway as Switch (3750X) IP Address rather than server IP Address. Currently we have configured all Sytems's Gateway is Internet Server IP Address which we are going to replace with Switch IP as Gateway. [code]
Issue is while connecting specific application like team viewer in which application tried to send keep alive message to the live server and in case of switch/router IP as gateway. Connection doesn't established. However it is working fine when Internet Server IP treated as gateway.
I have an Cisco 6500 CS and there is a Cisco Unified Communication Manger Server connected directly to the Core Switch.I tried to change duplex and speed ( fix and auto ) for both sides, but the same problem.
