Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
- Cisco Community
- :
- About whistleblower14
Stats
Member since
02-10-2016
41
Posts
0
Helpful
0
Solutions
Created by
whistleblower14
in Switching
in Switching
07-08-2019
03:32 AM
07-08-2019
03:32 AM
I´m about to make a big decision regarding the new connections of some customer servers (preferably with 10G); I'm looking preferably for a switch of which predominat 10G ports supplies and there is now the question whether I should go on the Cisco SMB (SX550X-24) or Cisco Catalyst 9500 (C9500-16X)? as far as I could see, the hardware performance is not that drastic differnt and the SMB switch scores in my opinion with the 10 BaseT RJ45 ports and of course the price is an issue, so I wonder - why choose Catalyst 9000 series? ? DNA or anything about that is´nt needed in that case... can anyone help with suggestions/recommendations?
... View more
Created by
whistleblower14
in Switching
in Switching
04-09-2019
12:06 PM
04-09-2019
12:06 PM
hi, this is also an interesting question for me too -- Does enabling interface Dampening under the ether channel/Physical interface helps?? quite sure that we could use the EEM for a lot of things, but maybe the configurtation of Dampening under the Layer2 Port-Channel Interface and/or the physical Member interfaces is already there to use for such a case?
... View more
Created by
whistleblower14
in Small Business Switches
in Small Business Switches
04-09-2019
01:26 AM
04-09-2019
01:26 AM
Hi, I´m facing this question in general too, using 2.4.5.71 the Administration Guide stats: Authorization—Performed at login. After the authentication session is completed, an authorization session starts using the authenticated username. The TACACS+ server then checks user privileges. is it "only" possible to refer the users to the default Priviledge Levels of 1, 7 and 15 or is it possible to build a customized Command-Set using a e.g. Authoriziation-List like the Enterprise devices support?
... View more
04-02-2019
06:29 AM
Hi, I´d like to configuring IP DHCP Snooping for a VLAN and because I´m using an IOS-Router as DHCP-Servert I´ve globally configured on the switches "ip dhcp snooping information option" so far so good... now reading through some documentatin about IP Source-Guard I´ve detected the following Note: When IP source guard is enabled in IP and MAC filtering mode, the DHCP snooping Option 82 must be enabled to ensure that the DHCP protocol works properly. Without Option 82 data, the switch cannot locate the client host port to forward the DHCP server reply. Instead, the DHCP server reply is dropped, and the client cannot obtain an IP address. so I´m not sure what this means, is my understanding correct that I`d run in a problem when both functionalites are co-existing enabled?
... View more
Labels:
03-30-2019
12:23 AM
hi @Deepak kumar I have read through the post, but I still cannot find a meaningfulness for the configuration I mentioned? In t he configured ip dhcp class is execpt for a remark entry no other parameter/sub-Options configured?!
... View more
03-29-2019
11:29 PM
@e.ciollaro thank you for your Response on this! Under the second Link you`ve mentioned there`s a great explantion about the function! but please let me ask you a question about the following configuration. what would you say about this? it`s from a switch which has a customer in use does that configuration make sense in your opinion? Because I`m not able to figure out the need of that or the difference to excluded IP-Adresses... ip dhcp class CLA-LIMIT remark limit Address Scope ! ip dhcp pool DHCP0403 vrf ik0403 network 10.4.3.0 255.255.255.0 default-router 10.4.3.254 dns-server 10.1.1.11 10.1.1.12 class CLA-LIMIT address range 10.4.3.11 10.4.3.200
... View more
Created by
whistleblower14
in Firewalls
in Firewalls
03-29-2019
11:11 PM
03-29-2019
11:11 PM
Hi @Marius Gunnerud , first of all - thank you for responding to my questions! of course the first statement according the two objectes for both 200.200.200.200 and 192.168.1.4 would`t be necessary but for the second one (see as follows), the Object NAT-PAT (200.200.200.200 is pointing back with two different TCP/Ports it is, or not? object network obj-host-192.168.1.4_TCP-23 host 192.168.1.4 nat (inside,outside) static obj-host-200.200.200.200 service tcp 23 23 ! object network obj-host-192.168.1.4_TCP-2323 host 192.168.1.4 nat (inside,outside) static obj-host-200.200.200.200 service tcp 2323 23 about the Manual-NAT... is there any official Cisco recommendation for doing only NAT sourced from inside->outside or is this your personal experience? Maybe you can point me out some unexpected behaviors from your Knowledge which could be caused?
... View more
Created by
whistleblower14
in VPN and AnyConnect
in VPN and AnyConnect
03-29-2019
10:58 PM
03-29-2019
10:58 PM
@RJI wrote: The split tunnel ACL is just used to identify the subnets, which is pushed to the AnyConnect client. I would not expect any hitcounts as this ACL is not being processed like an interface ACL. @RJI thank you very much - with this simple sentence you opened my eyes :) and probably steered me in the right direction! I´ve additionally set a VPN-Filter ACL and here I can see the hitcounts! thanks once again - cheers
... View more
Created by
whistleblower14
in VPN and AnyConnect
in VPN and AnyConnect
03-23-2019
06:56 AM
03-23-2019
06:56 AM
I'd like to know/understand why I've no hitcounts on the ACL statments like I've it for e.g. an ACL bound to an interface
... View more
Created by
whistleblower14
in Firewalls
in Firewalls
03-22-2019
01:07 AM
03-22-2019
01:07 AM
Hi to all, on the basis of a re-certification I am dealing with the NAT topic more intensively the last few days and I`d like to ask the following question. I want to implement the following static PAT for Telnet Access from external to Outside- IP: 200.200.200.200 (Inside-IP Server01 = 192.168.1.4) because in object NAT (Auto-NAT) only a single NAT statement can be used per object. I'd have to create an object for each port to be forwarded - it is for the same internal host , so i'd like to know if I can accomplish that task with the respective configurations and if there are any advantages or disadvantages between them... (1) object network obj-host-200.200.200.200_TCP-23 host 200.200.200.200 ! object network obj-host-200.200.200.200_TCP-2323 host 200.200.200.200 ! object network obj-host-192.168.1.4_TCP-23 host 192.168.1.4 nat (inside,outside) static obj-host-200.200.200.200_TCP-23 service tcp 23 23 ! object network obj-host-192.168.1.4_TCP-2323 host 192.168.1.4 nat (inside,outside) static obj-host-200.200.200.200_TCP-2323 service tcp 2323 23 or maybe this works also? object network obj-host-200.200.200.200 host 200.200.200.200 ! object network obj-host-192.168.1.4_TCP-23 host 192.168.1.4 nat (inside,outside) static obj-host-200.200.200.200 service tcp 23 23 ! object network obj-host-192.168.1.4_TCP-2323 host 192.168.1.4 nat (inside,outside) static obj-host-200.200.200.200 service tcp 2323 23 versus (2) object service TCP-23 service tcp destination eq 23 ! object service TCP-2323 service tcp destination eq 2323 ! ! object network obj-host-192.168.1.4 host 192.168.1.4 ! object network obj-host-200.200.200.200 host 200.200.200.200 ! ! nat (outside,inside) source static any any destination static obj-host-200.200.200.200 obj-host-192.168.1.4 service TCP-23 TCP-23 nat (outside,inside) source static any any destination static obj-host-200.200.200.200 obj-host-192.168.1.4 service TCP-2323 TCP-23
... View more
Labels:
Created by
whistleblower14
in VPN and AnyConnect
in VPN and AnyConnect
03-21-2019
04:45 AM
03-21-2019
04:45 AM
hi all,
I´ve a question regarding an ACL used for a split-tunnel policy... is it a normal behavior, that this ACL entries show NO hitcount when using the show access-list command? - Everything is working fine and I can also see the configured Networks in the AnyConnect Route-Details!
... View more
- Tags:
- anyconnect
- vpn
Labels:
02-17-2019
05:58 AM
yes, i know aboutit the 9410, but what's with the 9404 and 9407? is virtual stacking with 4 SUPs (2 active/standby in each switch) already supported?
... View more
02-16-2019
06:15 AM
@sbhadrav@cisco.com wrote:
9500 SVL support is expected in 16.8.1 which should be on CCO towards end of this month. It will support StackWise Virtual (SVL) on 10G and 40G links for all 9500. However, SVL connections will not initially be supported on the uplink module. This should get enabled in a later release. 9400 chassis Stackwise-virtual (which offers the functionalities as VSS) is currently targeted with 16.9 release with single supervisor. Support with dual-supervisor is under consideration.
for my understanding, you mean 2x 9400 in each one SUP, or? so talking about dual-supervisors (2 SUPs in each chassis = sum of 4) and virtual Stacking is this today still the case of beeing under consideration?
... View more
Created by
whistleblower14
in Switching
in Switching
02-15-2019
03:05 AM
02-15-2019
03:05 AM
thanks for your response!
maybe you can also help me about the ISSU/NSF - is this actually possible with 9500 in a vStack?
I´´m trying to understand the 9300 Stackwise-480 - would it be possible to stack for e.g. 9300-24P with a 9300-48T?
and of course what are the benefits of going with vStack exept the 10G PortDensity?
... View more
Created by
whistleblower14
in Switching
in Switching
02-14-2019
05:02 AM
02-14-2019
05:02 AM
Hi,
I`m planning to implement a pair of 2x Catalyst 9500-16X as a collapsed Core virtual Stack - but I´m not sure how to design the SWL Link, meaning how many links the Po128 should it include for best (performance, redundancy, etc.) and if I could/should use that PortChannel as well also for as the Dead-Peer-Detection Link...
any suggestions or redirects to helpful documentation I would appriciate, thank you!
... View more
Labels:
07-08-2019
I´m about to make a big decision regarding the new connections of some
customer servers (preferably ...
04-09-2019
hi,this is also an interesting question for me too -- Does enabling
interface Dampening under the et...
04-09-2019
Hi,I´m facing this question in general too, using 2.4.5.71the
Administration Guide stats:Authorizati...
04-02-2019
Hi,I´d like to configuring IP DHCP Snooping for a VLAN and because I´m
using an IOS-Router as DHCP-S...
03-30-2019
hi @Deepak kumar I have read through the post, but I still cannot find a
meaningfulness for the conf...
03-29-2019
@e.ciollaro thank you for your Response on this! Under the second Link
you`ve mentioned there`s a gr...
03-29-2019
Hi @Marius Gunnerud ,first of all - thank you for responding to my
questions!of course the first sta...
03-29-2019
@RJI wrote:The split tunnel ACL is just used to identify the subnets,
which is pushed to the AnyConn...
03-29-2019
Hi,I'm looking for an overview of which Nexus switches support the
function switch-profile (config-s...
03-23-2019
I'd like to know/understand why I've no hitcounts on the ACL statments
like I've it for e.g. an ACL ...
03-22-2019
Hi to all,on the basis of a re-certification I am dealing with the NAT
topic more intensively the la...
Created by
whistleblower14
in VPN and AnyConnect
03-21-2019
03-21-2019
hi all, I´ve a question regarding an ACL used for a split-tunnel
policy... is it a normal behavior, ...
02-17-2019
yes, i know aboutit the 9410, but what's with the 9404 and 9407? is
virtual stacking with 4 SUPs (2 ...
02-16-2019
@sbhadrav@cisco.com wrote: 9500 SVL support is expected in 16.8.1 which
should be on CCO towards end...
Created by
whistleblower14
in Switching
02-15-2019
02-15-2019
thanks for your response! maybe you can also help me about the ISSU/NSF
- is this actually possible ...
Public Statistics
| Date Registered | 02-10-2016 04:41 AM |
| Date Last Visited | 10-15-2019 10:52 AM |
| Total Messages Posted | 41 |
