On some devices, a routed L3 interface may require less hardware resources (from TCAM) than a VLAN plus SVI.
A routed port can enable you to re-use the same VLAN ID from another L3 port or from an L2 VLAN without any risk of L2 traffic in between.
A routed port may be easier to manage by an admin, especially with ECMP or similar (no need to twiddle with MSTP ...
This is the solution, we need both span and sflow tcam size 256, so i took vPC slice and give it to span region (Notes: following solution only apply for 40G Interface, if you are using 10G for data-source then nothing to do)
hardware access-list tcam region vpc-convergence 0
hardware access-list tcam region sflow 256
hardware access-list tcam region span ...
In an EIGRP network, how do you advertise a default route to all the routers?
There are a few ways to advertise a default route to the rest of the network.
Create a static route on the border router (of the EIGRP domain) and
redistribute it into EIGRP.
Create a summary route (0.0.0.0) on the border router.
Use the default-network command on the border ...
You need to assign an IP address to the VLAN 100 SVI to be the gateway address. DHCP will automatically assign DHCP on an addressed interface from the correct pool based on the interface address. You also need to have the gateway address in the pool. You probably want to define a DNS server in the DHCP pool, too.
ip dhcp pool guest-0100
network 10.10.100.0 ...
The system MTU is a globally applied setting to all interfaces and protocols (not just IP), as a default MTU unless a different MTU is defined on a particular interface or protocol.
The interface MTU setting is the MTU solely for that interface and affects all protocols used with whatever flows through that interface.
IPv4 MTU is an MTU setting that ...
Unfortunately, no, this can't be done. The models have to be the same even if they're models in the same family. Here's an answer from a Cisco forum entry on this topic and link to better explain and detail the requirements.
No, it is not supported to have vPC between different families of
Nexus, not even between different models from the same family:
I got it all working now, here is the config:
ip address 10.10.0.1 255.255.255.0
ip address 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.0
ip address 172.16.0.1 255.255.255.0
router ospf 10
no passive-interface ...
Each VRF contains its own routing table and which is separate from the global table.
You need to use route-map/prefix list that would inject the routes to inform each table where the other exists.
Think of the each VRF as a separate router. How would you use achieve this if they were physically sperate routers? A: running a routing protocol (Static vs AS)
You could try creating route maps to redistribute BGP to OSPF it also gives you more control over what is redistributed. The config below is from an Arista but you should be able to map it to a cisco. Ill try and spin this up in a lab as well and see what i can find.
route-map bgp_to_ospf permit 10
match ip address access-list bgp_to_ospf
Correct. The point of SD-Access is to be agnostic, using security at the endpoint/user layer instead of IP.
You should attend the Cisco SD-Access learning courses through their digital learning very helpful.
costs a few CLC for a years subscription.
Ideally, you want to ID all the endpoints and ...
Try using python and the vipela sdk
you can pull a ton of information from the module from vManage but you will need to manipulate the result which is returned as json/Dict.
"from vmanage.api.device import Device"
Sample from here: https://github.com/CiscoDevNet/python-viptela/blob/master/examples/...
What purpose do you need the master key? This would be buried in the internal code somewhere besides. what your seeing a looks like a level of hashing with salts on the password.
The article your reference is quite old and also looks like its referencing a SG300 which is a different code train then the enterprise switches and are quirky.
If you dont already ...
In IOS-XR, you can use the BGP table-policy to prevent routes from being installed in the main RIB while still announcing them to BGP neighbors.
Cisco's docs on this feature aren't great, but here are some links:
192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.3.2
That's why. Router 2 uses 192.168.3.2 as a gateway to 192.168.1.0/24, including 192.168.1.2. The router doesn't know (nor care) that there's no gateway behind that IP address.
Instead, Router 2's gateway towards 192.168.1.0/24 needs to point to Router 1's IP address on Gig9/0.
Router 1 requires routes to networks #2-#4 (and ...
Do yourself a favor and don't use NAT where it's not required. You're tunneling between private address areas and there's no address collision, whence no need to complicate things with using NAT.
Once you're routing transparently, you've simply got two paths between the networks. I'd use policy routing with fall back. ECMP requires session tracking and ...
You're creating an asymmetric routing situation. The destination may be different, but the source will be the same, so return traffic will always flow across the same ("default") tunnel.
One way to get around this is to do "twice nat"; rewrite source and destination. This doesn't necessarily have to happen on the same ASA, but often makes ...
That will work fine.
Are these routes coming from static or another routing protocol? If so, it might be better to use routing policy to match the routes (e.g. by tag, interface, or originating protocol) instead of list hundreds of routes.
I was finally able to test it in the production environment at my company and can confirm that no USB was necessary, despite the "Major Stack Protocol Version Number Incompatibility" - it was still possible to access the flash of the mismatched member from the master of the stack.
As for the auto-update feature, I must say that we only use bin ...