Heads Up :
The post you are writing will appear in a public forum. Please ensure all content is appropriate for public consumption. Review the employee guidelines for the community here.
Hi, We recently found two entries on our ACE logs constantly complaining about ip/arp collisions(%ACE-4-405001), and on further investigation we saw that these IP's related to the mac addresses no longer existed anywhere in our network. 1 ...
Hi,I've been reading up on a lot of material and so far only managed to confuse myself further.We currently run a;two chassis, single sup720 to each chassis, with two 48 port CFC G modules per chassis, and an ACE module per chassis.I've been requeste...
Hi Parvesh, The IP address was not reachable(ping-able) at all. The IP address did show up in the arp table though.The MAC address that it found on the ACE is the MSFC's system MAC address, so the MAC is/was valid, but not the IP.
That sounds more effective, and I did notice the recommendations for that, but first wanted to confirm if adding the second SUP720 would keep the physical port communication separate even if the second SUP is added, and if the config of the initial ...
I'm not sure if this article is in line with my current scenario, but as I mentioned, I went and did a lot of reading from different sources in order to try and determine what the affects of adding the additional SUP720 to our production environment ...
Hi,Thank you for the reply.Just to make sure I understand you correctly, if we add the additional SUP720's, with our dual chassis, single SUP720 design, the additional ports will work, an forward all traffic to the CFC's, and other MSFC? I read that ...
Hi Jon,We already have the two extra SUP's.So if we can make use of them in this way, and possibly gain additional benefits out of it, it would be more cost effective than buying the extra fibre modules, which I whole heartedly agree would be the bet...
