Hi all. Can anyone tell me if the 8 port IMA network module is
supported in the 3640s? I used the Compatibility tool, and it said I'd
be good with 12.2.11 YT but I'm having no success.
Any advice is appreciated.
*Mar 1 00:00:05.211: %PA-2-UNDEFPA: Undefined Port Adaptor type BD in
bay 2
Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
IOS (tm) 3600 Software (C3640-I-M), Version 12.2(11)YT2, EARLY
DEPLOYMENT RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
TAC Support: http://www.cisco.com/tac
Copyright (c) 1986-2003 by cisco Systems, Inc.
Compiled Thu 27-Feb-03 16:41 by cmong
Hi all. Can anyone tell me if the 8 port IMA network module is
supported in the 3640s? I used the Compatibility tool, and it said I'd
be good with 12.2.11 YT but I'm having no success.
Any advice is appreciated.
*Mar 1 00:00:05.211: %PA-2-UNDEFPA: Undefined Port Adaptor type BD in
bay 2
Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS (tm) 3600 Software (C3640-I-M), Version 12.2(11)YT2, EARLY
DEPLOYMENT RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
TAC Support: http://www.cisco.com/tac
Copyright (c) 1986-2003 by cisco Systems, Inc.
Compiled Thu 27-Feb-03 16:41 by cmong
Ejay Hire
... ln -s /dev/null /dev/clue
Could be that the boot image is complaining and not the run image. Can't tell from your email snippet. Check what version of boot image is the min req't for the module.
I've just upgraded a Cisco 7206 for a customer with a DS3 and we're
now ready to take full routes. No one is answering at support, email has
gone unanswered for thirty minutes - if someone at the Sprint NOC is
awake please call Neal or Mike at 402-426-6136 - we'd really like to get
this done before customers start waking up ...
I didn't know their NOC number, puck.nether.net is down, normal phone
channels lead to voicemail jail. Sorry to disturb your morning but its
much easier to complete by 0600 than to have five counties worth of
users dialing a phone right next to where you're working.
channels lead to voicemail jail. Sorry to disturb your morning but its
much easier to complete by 0600 than to have five counties worth of
users dialing a phone right next to where you're working.
The "problem " with your site is that it has the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6
In may case on dual-stack unix (sun) box dns6 is always resolved first (properly) and then sometimes because of the latency (ipv6) it times out.
On the other hand that prevents me from going through ipv4 connection which is good
The "problem " with your site is that it has the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6
In may case on dual-stack unix (sun) box dns6 is always resolved first
(properly) and then sometimes because of the latency (ipv6) it times out.
On the other hand that prevents me from going through ipv4 connection
which is good
Sounds like a sun related issue, I'm seeing no problem with my
other IPv6 enabled hosts.
# getent ipnodes puck.nether.net
2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 puck.nether.net
204.42.254.5 puck.nether.net
# traceroute puck.nether.net
traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using :: @ ?
traceroute to puck.nether.net (2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8), 30
hops max, 60 byte packets
1 2001:5a0:5000:1:: 2.078 ms 1.316 ms 1.149 ms
2 2001:5a0:8::1 1.648 ms 1.539 ms 1.351 ms
3 viagenie.tu-3.r00.snjsca06.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:4000::26)
34.631 ms 34.674 ms 34.540 ms
4 tu-3.r00.snjsca06.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:4000::25) 122.123 ms *
122.248 ms
5 tu-840.r00.asbnva01.us.b6.verio.net (2001:418:0:2000::22) 184.074 ms
184.211 ms 184.405 ms
6 t2914.nnn-7202.nether.net (2001:418:0:5000::15) 261.417 ms 245.284 ms
233.555 ms
7 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 224.388 ms 225.100 ms 226.350 ms
#
I think everybody should think about using the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6
phat:~> getent ipnodes puck.nether.net.
2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 puck.nether.net
204.42.254.5 puck.nether.net
phat:~> traceroute puck.nether.net
traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 3ffe:a00:f:4::2 @ le0:1
traceroute to puck.nether.net (2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 rtr2-eth1-1.blackrose.org (3ffe:a00:f:4::1) 1.433 ms 1.509 ms 1.318 ms
2 nnn-3640-tu2 (3ffe:a00:f:1::9) 84.991 ms 24.209 ms 12.557 ms
3 2001:418:3f4:0:2a0:24ff:fe83:53d8 12.423 ms 15.002 ms 46.298 ms
Ido not understand what you consider as problem here (the problem is not the latency which is more or less normal thing for ipv6 at this time)
"The problem" also showing on you box is that dns6 is resolved first
forcing the connection to be ipv6 which is not something that we really want at this stage.
That is why my point is that at this stage people should not have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 site.
Does any body know what is needed in config (resolver library) in order to force the client to look first in dns 4 and not dns6 ?
Ido not understand what you consider as problem here (the problem is not
the latency which is more or less normal thing for ipv6 at this time)
"The problem" also showing on you box is that dns6 is resolved first
forcing the connection to be ipv6 which is not something that we really
want at this stage.
really, why not? I don't know anyone who wants to use v6 only if v4
connection attemts fail.
Ido not understand what you consider as problem here (the problem is not the latency which is more or less normal thing for ipv6 at this time)
"The problem" also showing on you box is that dns6 is resolved first
forcing the connection to be ipv6 which is not something that we really want at this stage.
That is why my point is that at this stage people should not have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 site.
Does any body know what is needed in config (resolver library) in order to force the client to look first in dns 4 and not dns6 ?
Maybe you should not enable IPv6 in your systems if it does not work with your
connectivity? The whole idea is to have both AAAA and A records with the same
name so a client can choose IPv6 where enabled.
OK
The point is that ipv6 connection is not good enough to be used.
And for the sites that have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 ipv6 in a way "blackhole" ipv4 connection.
In this case puck.nether.net is timinig out from time to time (going over ipv6) instead of going over ipv4 network.
This problem has been discussed at some length in various of the IPv6 working groups (I can't even recall which ones - they all blur together and by Sebastien Roy, Alain Durand and James Paugh in draft-roy-v6ops-v6onbydefault-01.txt
By the way, my IPv6 connectivity to nether.net is actually better than v4:
OK
The point is that ipv6 connection is not good enough to be used.
And for the sites that have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 ipv6 in a way "blackhole" ipv4 connection.
In this case puck.nether.net is timinig out from time to time (going over ipv6) instead of going over ipv4 network.
Disable ipv6 from your routers / hosts. If that is not an option, type in the ipv4
address to your browsers but don�t tell other people to break their systems
because your environment is broken.
OK
The point is that ipv6 connection is not good enough to be used.
Wrong the v6 connection for your host isn't good enough to use. It works
fine from here...
And for the sites that have the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 ipv6 in a way
"blackhole" ipv4 connection.
that's a routing issue for you, not a problem with the dns.
In this case puck.nether.net is timinig out from time to time (going
over ipv6) instead of going over ipv4 network.
So really what you want is for you dns resolver to understand the
qualitiative differwences between the v6 and v4 paths to the same host,
that's seems somewhat unreasonable to expect from the dns.
My enviroment is far to be broken my friend.
This is not question about me or my environoment this question about your site ,I can always mange to get such a sites if I want but I am not sure that some other people are even awre what the problem is.
I think that still majority of ipv6 connections is through 6 bone and there you do have a latency and
evrybody using the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 should re-think it over
My enviroment is far to be broken my friend.
This is not question about me or my environoment this question about your site ,I can always mange to get such a sites if I want but I am not sure that some other people are even awre what the problem is.
I think that still majority of ipv6 connections is through 6 bone and there you do have a latency and
And you don�t find it even a little bit suspect that you are the only one having this problem?
(btw, for those of you who think that IPv6 isn't in use, you may now
safely ignore this thread).
My enviroment is far to be broken my friend.
This is not question about me or my environoment this question about
your site ,I can always mange to get such a sites if I want but I am not
sure that some other people are even awre what the problem is.
I think that still majority of ipv6 connections is through 6 bone and
there you do have a latency and
evrybody using the same dns for ipv4 and ipv6 should re-think it over
i would say that I serve a moderate number of web pages
a day off my web server. (warning, big!) here are some
statistics: http://puck.nether.net/stats.html
this is the first complaint i've received of accessing
puck via ipv6 (aside from when i was running a buggy kernel that would
cause it to stop responding to the v6 address periodically).
This means i'm getting a small number of emails sent via IPv6
without troubles. Might I suggest the problem is on your end. Do
you have all the latest solaris patches installed?
Either that, or ifconfig down your ipv6 interface or remove
the autoconf from your machine as necessary until you have a chance
to test it. In the mean time, you can visit the webpage here: http://204.42.254.5/netops/ I try to always use / referencing
urls, so it should work just fine for you. If you notice a url
that does not just reference /, please let me know.
and by Sebastien Roy, Alain Durand and James Paugh in draft-roy-v6ops-v6onbydefault-01.txt