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.
there are more than 15 servers which include xen,esx,vmware,also san etc..which are connected to L3 core switch directly. And vlans are created for each.....xen,iscsi,vmware,xen,server. wanted to know is there any other technology other than directly connecting servers to core switch and assigning vlans that can be used in place?
We are using CISCO Catalyst 6500 switches as collapsed core/distribution switches (2 layer architecture). I want to connect approximatly 10 application servers to the network. Can I connect the servers directly to the catalyst 6500 switches using WS-X6148E-GE-TX line cards? The other option is to use access switchs and then connect the servers to the catalyst 6500 through access switch(Catalyst 3750).
I have a Modem/Router combo and am trying to plug an 8 port switch directly into it and then have wireless AP's and other hardwired devices plugged into the switch. Normally, when I plug a switch into a router it requires no set up. This one on the other hand, will not work.
I currently have 3 core switches on my campus. They are 6509 catalyst switches. They currently are not interconnected to each other.I want to interconnect them to each other. The IP addresses of each core sit on a interface Loopback500. [code] How can I interconnect each core to each other and what IP scheme could I use. I want them to be straight L3 to each other.
I have a 3750X four-switch stack acting as the core of a fairly simple LAN. All I need to achieve (and this seems inordinately hard, but it is entirely likely that I'm just being dense) is to get access to the internet through my core switch, through the firewall and out through my VSAT. I've spoken at some length with the firewall providers (Cyberoam) and they tell me all I need to do when I migrate onto my new system (Cyberoam is currently in place at the entrance to our existing LAN) is change the local IP address of the Firewall, plug in the new switch to the LAN port, and away I go. Tried that, didn't work, so obviously I'm missing something.
connecting a 5548 pair to our core 6509s. Just want to be sure we don't introduce any issues into the network.The 6509's are connected and perform all the routing. Essentially, we're moving away from a 3750 stack in the data center and the 5548s are the replacement. We'd want to limit the vlans to the specific server network vlans. Our current setup is a port channel between the 3750 and each of the 2 6509s for redundancy. I'd like to use the same functionality when we connect the 5548's but I'm looking for what the config should look like to ensure no spanning tree loops are introduced and that it is configured optimally.
At our site we have a 4510 core switch and 3750x switches in our IDFs. The 3750 switches are connected to the core via DOT1Q trunks in a server client setup. We are putting in an Informacast/Berbee server witch will send pages and text to the cisco phones. We also have 1 3750 switch connecting to the core via a layer 3 port channel. If we put the Informacast server on the phones vlan would I just need to enable ip pim sparse-dense mode on that vlan only and enable multicast routing, ip multicast routing?
I have been working on redesign of our network which was very challenging but almost there.We have a limited budget of around £20k(32k Dollor) Max. The cabling has been done before my time and it is very messy and cheap so you can not do a proper cisco hierarchical model at all.I can not have multiple links from each access layer switch to the core/distribution and as a result i had to connect some access switches together to introduces redundancy in a nutshell,we have two buildings, main building which has the server room in it and the other building which is just bunch of office. i have introduced a partial mesh on the normal building and have tried to introduce full mesh on the main building .
We have a Cisco 3750G Core switch which has physical connections, each configured as trunks to two HP Access switches. The client who uses these access switches would like to put a link between the two, but this would create a loop.
I configure 3750 stack switch as core and 2960 stack switches as access layer switches.I connected my laptop to one of my core stack in VLAN 10 and I am pinging to one of my server in VLAN 1. What will be the minimum latency at the time of inter VALN routing
If I have two stackable switches one switch uplinks to one 6509 core switch and the other connection uplinks to another 6509 core switch, and also the other stackable switch does not connect to the core switches. Because I am using hsrp and also we are not using vss then one uplink to the core is not in used only ones is so then how does creating an etherchannel between does two uplinks to both core switches benefit me in anyway such as more bandwith and using both uplinks at the same time or I'm I wrong?
If I have two stackable switches were only one stackable switch has two uplinks one uplink goes to one core 6509 switch and the other uplink goes to the other 6509 core switch can a Layer 3 etherchannel be used if each uplink go to a different core switch, by the way hsrp is running between both switches and also can you give an example how data will be routed from the stackable switch through the ethernetchannel to one of the core switch accross the WAN to another core switch?
I just want to connect two computers over the internet as if they are in the same network. This doesnt have to be VPN I dont care about security I just want to get them connected as if they are on the same network. Is there anyway to set this up in my linksys router? Can I use windows VPN? What is the easiest way to get this accomplished? Can you somehow connect two routers through internet like one is 192.168.1.1 and one is 192.168.2.1?Like I said I dont really care how it is done I just need it done. Any easiest way to connect two computers through internet so that they are on the same network.
What I learned was it was bad to connect directly to the modem because you are left open to the internet. Currently my friend just got the internet and I told them to buy a router but they did not, and just have it directly connected to the modem. Is this fine, because they only have one computer, and it works fine for now, but wouldn't this be prone for attack?
I've been trying to connect my laptop directly to my Arris modem with an ethernet cable to get on the internet, but for some reason every time I do I have "limited access" and can't get on the internet. I can only seem to get my laptop on the internet while the wireless router is connected to the modem and then either connecting wirelessly or by connecting my laptop to the wireless router with an ethernet cable.I want to connect to the internet without my wireless router, because someone was hacking our router and was apparently doing illegal downloads. We got a cease and desist letter that said our internet will be terminated if it happens again, so I want to connect to the internet without any wireless connections being set up.
I've got VPN connection from Cisco 877 to ASA 5520 and on the Cisco 877 I've got SIP device which doesn't has to go through VPN. I assume that for the best audio quality I should bypass the VPN and connect directly to the SIP servers, but how to configure it??
I want to buy a wireless router to which I can connect my USB internet device directly, so I don't have to turn on my PC all the time if I just want to use my moble phone or iPOD or other family members wanting to connect to internet.
I would like my dcs-930l ip camera to be directly connected to my d-link dsl-321b modem (which has only one rj45 port to connect to), so that I can either access the cam via the internet (watching livestream through webinterface, that would be option 1) or so that the cam sends an email with a picture as soon as the motion sensors activate - that would be option 2 (by the way: the modem / cam get internet access through german telekom / t-online).
I have tried to get option 1 as well as option 2 to work, but I failed... I would be happy if either option 1 or 2 would work for me - I don't really care which one. In both cases, the problem seems to be that the dcs-930l cam cannot access the internet (but the cam itself works - I can view the livestream through the local network).
In my Company there is a core Switch 4500 series , to which in the 1st module servers are connected and in the second module 2960 , 3750 series Switches are connected, problem is that the Utilization of Core switch is very high and the core gets hanged. the configuration of the senerio is VTP domain i.e core is Server and the rest are Clients....
I have a Cisco 2811 router with C288nm-advsecuruityk9-mz.151-4-4.M.bin IOS version.The router has two LAN interface FE 0/0 and FE 0/1.The router have too, two interfaces ADSL ATM0.0.0 and ATM 0.0.1, both are connect to internet..I need the next configuration.The interface FE 0/0 is directly connect to a Switch A.The interface FE 0/1 is directly connect to a Access Point Cisco.The Access Point and the Switch is not connecting between.The subnet of Switch A and AP are different (Switch A 192.168.180.0/24 and AP 192.168.181.0/24)The devices in the switch A have dynamic IP address, the router must be a DHCP pool to assign theses IP.The device in the AP have dynamic IP address, the router must be a DHCP pool to assign theses IP.I created two DHCP pools in the router, one for the subnet 192.168.180.0 and other for 192.168.181.0, but the devices of FE 0/0 assign IP of 192.168.180.0 or 192.168.181. 0, but not only in the 192.168.180.0.
Is there any problems expected in working with core switch of Juniper EX8208 with access switches of Nortel Baystack5520 / 380 / 425 and 325? Whether the VLAN, Multicasting, streaming, STP, SNMP, etc will work without any issues?
I am trying to test (if possible) the idea of having 2 6509-E switches connected directly to each other while using VRF-lite (Sup 2T). The idea is to have 3-4 separate networks. For example Net-A, Net-B,Net-C, Net-D. There is no PE router*, just these two switches. Also, there sin't any other access layer switches. All users connect directly to the 6509-E's via switch 48 port switch blades.
Net-A and Net-B on separate VRF's, but able to talk to each other. Net-C and Net-D* on separate VRF's without being able to talk to any other. Net-D* will have a PE since it comes from an external network. This is something I would like to test in a lab environment, but I am not familiar with VRF's.
I just ran Cat6 from my WNDR3700 to a netgear NeoTV550. WNDR is in the computer room and the Neo is in the living room. Cat6 had to be fished downstairs, around the bathroom wall and over the solid plaster ceiling. Fun times! My question is, should I add a switch to the connection on the far end, essentially creating a trunk sans dot1.q tagging and then plug the Neo in? Or should I just plug directly into the Neo?
We have a 3750X VTP Server and the rest of the switches are clients.
Due to cabling issues, we have a switch (Switch F) that we can't connect directly to the 3750X so we have it connected through another switch. Everything is set to VTP client with the correct domain and password but this not-directly-connected switch isn't receiving any VTP VLANs.
Anything I need to do on Switch D so that Switch F can receive the VTP updates?