I'm trying to add an outbound policy on Layer3 interface on a 6500. The will be used to prioritize voice traffic. The environment contains 2 sites with 2 6500's each with VSS and a metro Ethernet link between them. I seem to be having problems prioritizing the voice across this link.
View 1 RepliesON 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]
View 1 Replies View RelatedI'm unable to apply a policing limit in a switchport of the CISCO861 router. This is my configuration:interface FastEthernet0, service-policy input wired-input,service-policy output wired-output end.
View 3 Replies View RelatedOn a 6500 switch running ios 12.2, is there a way of clearing all config settings for a specified interface? I want to avoid going through and having to type "no blah blah etc" for each line.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have a really weired thing happening on 6509 device with one of my customers.The device has a SUP 2 (MSFC2) with version 12.2.18SXF17B.
any VLAN interface once administratively down or simply down shows on "show interface status" output as VLAN.While it supposed to show "Routed". However once the port is up it is shows "routed" like it should.
I am replacing a 7204 router with a 4948 and am having trouble trying to replicate the config for the qnq Layer3 interface.A bit of background - I am a service provider where I have an interconnect with the carrier, who pass off WAN links to me as a standard VLAN Ids. Some of these VLANs however I can do QnQ.
This works fine - but I can get the second-dot1q 50 command working properly
Q. Does the Supervisor 720 support all existing Cisco Catalyst 6500 series interface and services module, protecting customer investments?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have just updated a VLAN interface on my router. I have two 6500's with GLBP configured. The particular interface had a primary and secondary IP address. I shutdown the interface on one router and deleted the secondary address then assigned the orignal secondary address to be the be the only address associated with the interface and enabled the interface and it came right back up...all looks good. I proceeded to do the same thing to the other router and once again all looked good. Now, I am able to PING the devices in the subnet from router, but am unable to ping them from any place else. [code]
View 2 Replies View RelatedWe are about to install a new network consisting of Cat 4500s with Sup7E at the Access Layer, with Nexus 7000 at the Distribution and Core layers. We have 14 floors with at least three 4500s on each floor. Within the office block where the Access Layer and Distribution Layer reside we need to support secure borderless networking using 802.1x to place users from different parts of the business into segregated networks at layer 3.All switches will have the feature sets to support MPLS/ VRF / OSPF / EIGRP / BGP etc.We quickly dismissed the idea of using VRF-Lite due to the sheer number of Vlans we would need to managage and maintain, the point to point links alone just to get one additional VRF on each floor required far too many Vlans.As a result we are now considering deploying MPLS. The obvious benefits include scalability and manageability, the fact that all switch to switch links can now be routed, instead of having to using SVIs.
View 2 Replies View RelatedHow to set the default outbound policy as block in access rules of rv220w? I configure my company router RV220W to block all outbound service traffic, just allow outbound service as : http, https, smtp, dns_tcp / udp. it works fine for some hours, the next day, the rules like expired, the https / smtp / DNS service fail to outgoing, only the http is still ok? What happen? Now I just set the default outbound policy as allow, all traffic can go out, but that is meaningless for a firewall device.
View 1 Replies View RelatedIs it possible to establish PBR rules that set the ip next-hop to point directly to the inside interface of the ASA5550?Or, do I need to direct this PBR traffic first to a directly connected router interface and then default route to the ASA?At a high level, here's what we have:
ISP 1 - with /21 IP PrefixNo BGP Routing3845 Edge Router - Default Route to ISP 1PIX535 Firewalls (HA) - Default Route to Edge RouterLAN Core/Distribution - Default Route to PIX535 Inside InterfaceAll applications/services use this egress path for PAT/NAT/DMZ/VPN/Etc.
Here's what we are adding:
ISP 2 - with /24 IP PrefixNo BGP Routing3925E Edge Router - Default Route to ISP 2ASA5550 Firewalls (HA) - Default Route to Edge RouterSame connectivity to LAN Core/Distribution
Goals:Maintain ISP 1 for nowMigrate only end user Internet traffic to ISP 2No disruptions to applications/services using current DefGW to PIX535
Question: how to best use PBR to selectively direct traffic to the ASA inside interface?
how can we upgrade 6500 non modular ios to normal 6500 ios?
View 5 Replies View RelatedHow to rate limit a 3560 inbound and outbound using different QoS methods. I've read about vlan class maps/policy maps, using the rate limit command on the physical interface, using the srr-queue bandwidth command(it's a gig switch so not sure that would work) and marking all packets and then applying QoS. I'm just learning QoS so trying to figure all of this out and find the best way to do things.
Also, I was told to do this because it's not advisable to have a connection to your ISP that is not 10mb or 100mb on a switch, since they are not divisible by 10 and it can cause issues?
Cisco 2811 runs ITP IOS. On that router we run the SMPP service. A client on the network connects to this service, and we need to capture the traffic for debug.
I've tried traffic-export, but I cannot see any outbound traffic. Is there any way to capture the outbound traffic?
How can I achieve this. I am obviously a novice cisco user and really fight my way around. I just want to grant access to a vendor to connect to his vpn. What ports need opened and what else do I need to do?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI'm trying to get the following running.
I have 4 Subnets
VLAN 1 172.20.0.0/16 with the default GW 172.20.200.254
VLAN 10 192.168.10.0/24 with the default GW 192.168.10.2
VLAN 59 192.168.59.0/24 with the default GW 192.168.59.254
VLAN 130 192.168.130.0/24 with the default GW 192.168.130.254
[Code]....
With absolutly the same settings I did this with an HP E4200-12G L3 Switch (which is now doing the job) so there is no routing mistake in the other components.For me it looks like, the SG300 doesn't like to be NOT the default gateway.
I've been testing some QoS policies, and I have not been able to make a type QoS policy work in the outbound direction. Simple example:
ip access-list QOS-VOICE
10 permit ip any 10.120.11.0/24
20 permit ip 10.120.11.0/24 any
class-map type qos match-any IN-VOICE
description Voice/VoIP/IPT
[code]....
The 7Ks are running NX-OS 5.2(4). Just wondering - has any one got an outbound qos policy to work on a N7K?
I'm intending to purchase a switch for work,and I need to limit the bandwidth of one of the ports to 25 Mbit upload and 25 Mbit download (we have 100/100 Mbit connection and the customer is only paying for 25). I been trying to find information on how this could be "properly" done and what kind of switch I need to buy. As far as I have understood, most L2+ switches support outbound rate limiting, but not inbound, and as I only want the customer to have 25 mbit up and down, I need both.
I been looking at a Cisco Catalyst 3560 switch, and I'm first and foremost wondering if I can limit the inbound AND outbound bandwidth on this switch? Perhaps it can even be done on a simpler, cheaper, switch - as I rather not spend more money then necessary?
Lastly, how to do it, limit the inbound and outbound bandwidth on a single port (perhaps on the above mentioned switch, if possible), to 25 Mbit?
I want to configure accesslists on my Catalyst 3750X-switches to protect different VLANs/networks. Any best-practices about inbound versus outbound accesslists? In my head it is more readable and easier to understand the config when accesslists are assigned outbound on the VLAN to protect instead of assigning them inbound on all possible source-VLANs. But of course, from a performance point-of-view it is better to use inbound access-lists to avoid un-necessary routing etc.
View 1 Replies View RelatedWe have some ASR WAN routers which have a dedicated 400M interface to a remote site.
Servers on our Local network source the data through some firewalls via 10G interfaces, which connects to 4500X WAN switches then to the Routers on 1G links.
The sources are rate limiting the traffic but the routers are periodically dropping packets which I think is mostly due to burstiness in the traffic between as it traverses through from 10G links to 1G then to 400M.
How to setup traffic shaping on the 4500X outbound port to our WAN routers.I'd like to see if we could buffer and smoothe out the traffic as it exits the 4500X WAN switch 1G port to the WAN Routers.
I am trying to convert QOS policy on 6500 CAT to IOS as below,
1-getting error when try to apply on interface.
2-How can I apply both into one plicy map because IOS convertor puts into two policy maps.
CAT
set qos policer aggregate Limit_WSUS rate 4000 policed-dscp erate 4000 drop burst 1000 eburst 1000set qos policer aggregate Limit_SCCM rate 4000 policed-dscp erate 4000 drop burst 1000 eburst 1000clear qos acl all
#WSUSset qos acl ip WSUS dscp 0 aggregate Limit_WSUS ip host 172.16.9.3 any
set qos acl ip WSUS dscp 0 aggregate Limit_SCCM ip host 172.16.10.5 any
[code]....
Cisco 3560 does not support "set ip next-hop verify-availabilty". I need this command in my config. "set ip next-hop" do not do the same job.
View 8 Replies View RelatedWhen mutiple Policy based routing configured on 7600 routers, did the router performace degraded with the number of policy based routing rules?Also, did 7600 running 12.x use per-flow based routing or per packet based routing?
View 1 Replies View RelatedIf client gateway = 192.168.64.9 then next-hop = 192.168.64.8 else use default-route 0.0.0.0
I know it's possible to do a route-map match ip-address ACL list. But is it possible to match on gateway?
Some info about hardware and config:
6509-E in VSS (IOS 12.2(17r)SX5) withVS-S720-10G supervisor.
All routes are static, IP for 192.168.64.9 is on SVI vlan.
I have a 1941 router configured for Policy based routing with two ISPs.Two static default routes configured to point the gateways of respoective ISPs with same metric.But the problem is, packets are going throug the one ISP only while doing traceroute.
N/W connectivity:
ISP1-----> <----------------------> LAN1
| Router |
ISP-------> <----------------------> LAN 2
Below is my configuration :
Current configuration : 5958 bytes
!
! Last configuration change at 05:18:56 UTC Mon Jun 25 2012
!
version 15.0
service timestamps debug datetime msec
service timestamps log datetime msec
no service password-encryption
[code]....
I have a simple design with 3750. I configured a route-map which define a next hop. I defined this route-map on a policy on a vlan interface.When I test some ping and a debug ip policy and it seems that my policy never match.Is there any mechanism that prevent the switch from using PBR? I think of CEF .
View 5 Replies View RelatedIn our datacenter we have a 3750 stack with IP base image. I have enabled PBR and reloaded the switch. Show sdm prefer says i am using default template. The reason i want to use PBR is that we have 2 firewalls on the same work and want to be able to have granular control over which gateway out of the network they use but still be able to access all internal resouces accross wan and locally.
Created access list to identify traffic:
access-list 10 permit 10.2.3.59 (test workstation on vlan 3)
Created policy:
route-map TestASA permit 10
match ip address 10
set ip next-hop 10.2.0.3
Assigned policy to the user vlan3:
ip policy route-map TestASA
Results:It changed the default gateway to the above gateway but i could not access any resources on any other vlan, could not access resouces accross wan.
I have tried to make policy based routing on Cisco 3560. I use ipservices ios (SW version 12.2.(50)SE3 and SW-IMAGE C3560-IPSERVICESK9-M) For below configuration there is no problem and pbr is working.
“Access-list 100 permit ip host 1.1.1.1 host 2.2.2.2
Access-list 101 permit ip host 1.1.1.1 host 3.3.3.3
Route-map pbr1 permit 10
Match ip address 100
Set ip next-hop verify-availability 1.1.1.2 1 track 11
interface fasthethernet 0/1
ip policy route-map pbr1”
But when i add another sequence to the "pbr1" with another sequence number like that.
“Route-map pbr1 permit 11
Match ip address 101
Set ip next-hop verify-availability 1.1.1.3 1 track 12”
pbr is not working. Switch gives message "PLATFORM_PBR-3-UNSUPPORTTED_RMP:Route-map pbr1 not supported for Policy Based Routing”"ip policy route-map pbr1" command not shown in the running config. And "show ip policy" output is blank.Configuration guide says you have insert many sequence to the route-map with the same name. And also this command is not in the unsupported command list.
I have a simple design with 3750.I configured a route-map which define a next hop.I defined this route-map on a policy on a vlan interface.When I test some ping and a debug ip policy and it seems that my policy never match.Is there any mechanism that prevent the switch from using PBR?
View 10 Replies View RelatedI have problem while implementing policy based routing with a firewall. Let me explain in detail.
I have 2 remote site(Site A-small , Site B - Big) , Site B is connected with HQ with Tunnels 1 and 2 , Site B and Site A is connected with Tunnel 9941.
What I want is: Scenirio for Communication :
1)Site A--------->VPN Router Site B-----------> FW-------------->VPN Router Site B------------------>Central Site
2)Central Site--------->VPN Router Site B-----------> FW---------->VPN Router Site B-------------->Site A
3)Site B--------->FW-------------------->VPN Router Site B------>Central Site
4)Central Site--------->VPN Router Site B-------------------->FW------>Site B
5)Site A--------->VPN Router Site B-----------> Site B(no firewall)
6)Site B--------->VPN Router Site B-----------> Site A(no firewall)
Tunnel 1: 10.13.199.1-2
Tunnel 2: 10.13.199.1-2
Tunnel9941: 172.22.99.1-2
Site A LAN- 10.99.41.0/24
Site B LAN- 10.99.0.0/16
Central LAN - 10.18.0.0/16
I am having a problem with PBR done on a 7604-S router - It seems like it is not done in harware. I have an Iperf client and an Iperf server, and would like to test the performance of 7600 router for PBR, supervisor is RSP720-3C-G and used interface card is 7600-ES20-GE3C ESM20G.
I have read numerous discussions about PBR that is supposed to happen in hardware when you use it with matching access-list and set ip next-hop.Although, when I start the iperf, the 7600 cpu is hitting the 80-90 % boundary, and transfer bandwidth can't go over 120-130 Mbit/s.The IP Policy is applied on an interface part of vrf ONE maybe this is casing the problem... ?
The diagram and configuration follows:
Configuration:
c7604#sh run
boot system flash disk0:c7600rsp72043-advipservicesk9-mz.122-33.SRE2.bin
!
ip vrf one
[Code]...
I want to send a particular data stream (source-A destination-B) through only one of two WAN routers to a remote site. The remote site also has two WAN routers. Traffic from source-A will travel through a core and distribution layer of 6500 L3 switches, running 12.2(33)SXH8, to the WAN routers which are two ASR1006s. The remote end is the same - two ASR1006 WAN routers to 6500 distribution and Core L3 switches. All 6500s are L3 uplinked to each other and to the WAN routers. All traffic from the local site to the remote site routes throuh only one of the two WAN routers. I want to move only traffic from source-A to source-B to the second WAN router to the remote site.
Would it be best to use policy-based routing or an offset list of some sort to accomplish this? I've done PBR before where you just hand off traffic described in an ACL to a particular outbound port and basically hand carry the traffic to a point in the network where EIGRP prefers the route you want.
I've been implementing a setup where a remote office has a Cisco 1900 router. There are 2 GRE/ IP SEC tunnels to the headquarters, 1 over public internet, 1 over a private cloud. Because of some MTU issues we have to clear the DF bit for some of the traffic, but we also want to use PBR to send https traffic over the "public internet" tunnel and the rest of the traffic over the "private cloud" tunnel. I'm able to clear the DF bit and to do the PBR with route-maps, but I'm not able to implement both functionality at the same time.
View 1 Replies View Related