Bandwidth mismatch in Point-to-Point link

In point-to-point serial link connection, if the bandwidth setting on both sides are not the same, will the connection status is up and running? What will the bandwidth be? The lower one?

As I indicated earlier, the bandwidth configured at the interface level is only used for IGP metrics etc. If set to be different at either end, it will not affect the physical state of the interface. It will stay up.
However, it's better to make them the same.
PAresh

Similar Messages

IPv6 Addressing Point to Point Links in the enterprise

For an enterprise, it doesn't seem to make sense to use Global addressing for point to point, transit-only links and loopbacks.
Link-local only addressing breaks debugging tools like traceroute, DNS, etc.
Is Unique Local the correct choice for this?
I've searched quite a bit and I've not found a lot of discussion about scope selection for point to point links. Some RFCs such as 6164 imply Global scope vs Unique Local scope usage is a preference. Most discussions of point to point addressing focus on bit length. I'm assuming this means design concerns are agnostic toward scope selection.
Is anyone aware of documentation I've missed or have any recommendations in this area?
If ULA was the correct choice, address hierarchy might look like this:
DataNetwork1 -- Router1 -- ULA.1.1 -- Link -- ULA1.2 -- Agg Router -- Core
DataNetwork2 -- Router2 -- ULA.2.1 -- Link -- ULA2.2 -- Agg Router /
DataNetwork3 -- Router3 -- ULA.3.1 -- Link -- ULA3.2 -- Agg Router /
The network core would have summarized entries for DataNetwork[1|2|3] and ULA[1|2|3]. IE, there would be a Global hierarchy and a ULA hierarchy.

Scott,
Let me break this down into some categories for you.
Address selection:
I believe that best practice is to use Global Unicast Addressing everywhere (coupled with a proper security policy at your edge). ULA was a compromise for Site Local never being properly defined and whilst it can be used in the same way as GUA I don't believe it is worth it. Irrespective of what you use (GUA or ULA), subject to your security and routing policy traceroute will work from both ends (e.g. you tracing out, someone tracing in)
Address masking:
The general rule of thumb is that you allocate /64s to eveything and then mask down to the appropriate mask for the function you are expecting (P.S. Forget everything you learnt about IPv4 address conservation). If you are using /127 masks then in theory every p2p link in your network is either a 0 (::) or a 1 (::1)
e.g.
traceroute HostB:
1     2001:1234:abcd:1::1
2     2001:1234:abcd:2::1
3     2001:1234:abcd:3::1
4     2001::4:10
The only exception to this is loopbacks, you can sequentially allocate /128s from the same /64 block
NOTE: /127 support is recent and may not be supported by some vendors, in this case use /126 masking (same as you would use /30s in IPv4)
If you have a /48 ( a normal enterise allocation) or larger then this should not be an issue ( you have access to 65536 x /64s) the only reason you would consider ULA for infrastructure numbering is because you have a small IPv6 pool. I would still argue you should get more IPv6 addresses than use ULA.
I hope this helps
Cheers

Rx load 100/255 observing packet drops on a point to point link

Hi, I have point to point link, if rxload goes above 40%, packets are getting dropped on a link. checked with ISP for mux issue but there is no problem from isp side. please suggest

Please post the configs and sh int output.

Create a point to point link with a wlc 4402

Hi to all,
i have a wlc 4402 and i need to configure a point to point link with two air-lap1310g-e-k9, i have found on cisco.com this link:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6366/products_configuration_example09186a00808e9c1b.shtml#zero
but on the wlc configuration page i cannot found some configuration step.
Someone have configured this type of behaviour or can give me some hints?!
How can i configure on the wlc the parameter about the bridges configuration?! Or i must configure the bridges overriding the global configuration?!
Thanks and best regards,
Carlo Sagratella.

The correct thing to do would be to downgrade the 1310's to autonomous (or 1242's) and set up a root bridge and non-root bridge.
Alternately however, if you REALLY wanted one of the points to be LWAPP, in theory you could always make one of the Access Points Autonomous and join it as a workgroup bridge to the LWAPP AP. However, there really is no reason to do that since it would be cleaner to convert both to autonomous.

Config etherchannel for point to point link

for point to pint network i use privateip and i use two link thus the config for etherchannel works
My requirement there are 2 link so can i bundled with etherchaanel
0n l3 switch(switch1)
int po1
no switchport
ip address 172.18.2.1 255.255.255.0
no shutdown
int range fa0/1-2
no switchport
switchport access valn 199
channel-group 1 mode on
on fa0/1--isp1 link
on fa0/1---isp2 link
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.18.2.2
on l3 switch(switch2)
int p01
no switchport
ip address 172.18.2.2 255.255.255.0
no shutdown
int range fa0/1-2
no switchport
switchport access vlan 22
channel-group 1 mode on
on fa0/1-isp1 link
on fa0/2-isp2 link
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.18.2.1

Hello Prashant,
I recommend to use LACP instead of unconditional bundling it provides the capability to detect the neighbor and that is the same system connected to the other link.
You have ISP connections in the middle and so it is important to bundle in a safe way.
So I would use
channel-group 1 mode active
in order to use LACP. LACP messages are sent over every member link.
Another point of attention is that you are configuring each multilayer switch with a static default route to the other device and this is not good practice.
If you know that one site is more important you can configure the static default route on the other router, but on the main site you should configure specific static routes describing the IP subnets that are reachable at the other site.
Hope to help
Giuseppe

How to Bundle Muliple Dark Fiber point to point links

Hi There
We have 2 data centers and are currently in the process of designing OTV between them leveraging 2 x 1GB point to point Dark Fibre links.
In DC1 the 2 connections will terminate in a Nexus VDC (VPC enabled)Cluster
In DC2 the 2 connections will termination in a 6500 HSRP cluster (1 is a 6509 and 1 is a 6513)
Will it be possible for me to use an etherchannel type setup here to get the most out of both of the connections?
Thanks

Thanks for your reply.
Can you throw some ideas at me in which I could make this work?
what if I was to terminate the connections on a 3560 in front of the 6500 switches in DC2?
In DC1 they would be terminated in a VPC domain so on that side it should be OK?

CEF/Point to Point link in ASR 903 not working

Hi there,
I have been having some issues with ASR 903 connected to a OLT and upon further testing in the lab I came across a strange issue.I have R1 and R2 connected directly on the p2p link Tengig interface.I have configured below ips but somehow cannot get connectivity.I can see the mac resolved in one router but no in the other and cef entries in both reflects drop.
Have you guys come across this before?Surely I'm missing something here but considering both routers are straight out of the box, I'running out of ideas here as the setup cannot be any simpler than this however I am unable to establish connectivity.
Router2#
Interface IP-Address OK? Method Status Protocol
Te0/1/0 10.10.10.2 YES manual up up
uilding configuration...
Current configuration : 78 bytes
interface TenGigabitEthernet0/1/0
ip address 10.10.10.2 255.255.255.0
end
Router1#
Te0/1/0 10.10.10.1 YES manual up up
uilding configuration...
Current configuration : 78 bytes
interface TenGigabitEthernet0/1/0
ip address 10.10.10.1255.255.255.0
end
Router1#sh ip arp
Protocol Address Age (min) Hardware Addr Type Interface
Internet 10.10.10.1 - e0d1.73dd.7909 ARPA TenGigabitEthernet0/1/0
Internet 10.10.10.2 0 Incomplete ARPA
Router2#sh ip arp
Protocol Address Age (min) Hardware Addr Type Interface
Internet 10.10.10.1 0 e0d1.73dd.7909 ARPA TenGigabitEthernet0/1/0
Internet 10.10.10.2 - e089.9d0b.2389 ARPA TenGigabitEthernet0/1/
Router1#sh ip cef exact-route 10.10.10.2 255.255.255.0
10.10.10.2 -> 255.255.255.0 =>drop
Router2#sh ip cef exact-route 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.0
10.10.10.1 -> 255.255.255.0 =>drop

Hi,
According to your post, my understanding is that the Office 365 link on Left suite Bar(Blue bar) failed to work on Sharepoint.
If you click the “Office 365” logo, it will redirect to the “Office 365 admin center” which URL is
https://portal.microsoftonline.com/Default.aspx.
Please make sure you have permission to log on to the Office 365 portal.
You can use an account that has administrative permissions for your organization.
Regarding SharePoint Online, for quick and accurate answers to your questions, it is recommended that you initial a new thread in Office 365 forum.
Office 365 forum
http://community.office365.com/en-us/forums/default.aspx
Best Regards,
Linda Li
Linda Li
TechNet Community Support

Advertsing point to point links in eigrp

when I advertise my wan links in eigrp do I just advertise the /30 network on both sides of the wan ?

With EIGRP, when you enter the network command within the routing process, it doesn't advertise what is specified by the command, but rather advertises the interfaces that fall within what is specified by the network command.
Consider the following WAN links
int s0/0
ip addr 192.168.30.5 255.255.255.252
int s0/1
ip addr 192.168.30.9 255.255.255.252
Within the EIGRP routing process, the following command would include both interfaces and advertise both /30 networks
network 192.168.30.0
If you would like to only advertise one of the links, or be more specific, the following would only advertise the network on interface s0/0
network 192.168.30.5 0.0.0.3
Make sense?

How to reduce bandwidth required for spa9000 to spa941 link

Anyone can help me with this situation?
I have an spa400-spa9000-spa941 configuration over a satellite internet link. It works fine, during low traffic hours (night) but during the day the voice quality goes really bad (cutted voice, constant interruptions, etc).
We have already measured the bandwidth consumed by the spa941 to spa9000 link, and have found it at 80kbps upstream by 80 kbps downstream. We require to reduce it at least half of the actual values (40 kbps up by 40 kbps down).
We have already tried changing the codecs through the spa941 configuration menu: ( EXT1 –> Audio Configuration -> Preferred Codec -> G726-16 ), without success.
It seems that although we do that changes, the link between spa941 and spa9000 keeps working with the G711u codec.
We require that both calls coming in and out the spa9000 are compressed with a less bandwith consuming codec.
Which options do we need to change in the spa9000 and spa941 in order to make the G726-16 (or a less bandwidth consuming codec) the default codec between both equipments?
We are using firmware version 5.1.9 for spa9000 and version 5.1.8 for spa941.

I have the following options selected in SPA9000 SIP configuration:
SDP Payload Types
-->RTP-Start-Loopback Codec: G726-16
Internal Music Source Parameters
-->Internal Music LBR Codec: G726-16
-->Internal Music Preferred Codec: Low Bit Rate
Auto Attendant Parameters
-->AA LBR Codec: G726-16
-->AA Preferred Codec: Low Bit Rate
... and the following options selected in SPA941 EXT1 configuration:
Audio Configuration
-->Preferred Codec: G726-16
-->Use Pref Codec Only: Yes
With this configuration when we try to dial from SPA941 to remote SPA9000 we get BUSY tone.
Any other thing we should check?

Configuration of a Point to MultiPoint link with Cisco Aironet 1310 bridges

Hi All,
The previous problem of which I started another conversation here:
http://forum.cisco.com/eforum/servlet/NetProf?page=netprof&forum=Wireless%20-%20Mobility&topic=General&CommCmd=MB%3Fcmd%3Ddisplay_location%26location%3D.1ddba023
somehow dissapeared. It could have been a problem of interferences.
I have another issue with other (multipoint) wireless WAN link, which I hope has a solution.
On the central node, we have an Cisco Aironet 1310 bridge configured as root-bridge. It has a panel of four vertical polarity 17 dBi panel 90? antennas, with more than enough gain (there is a 250 mWatts 802.11 b/g amplifier, before the 4-way splitter) and excellent line of sight to three remote bridges.
The three (03) remote bridges are also Aironet 1310 models, confidured as non-root-bridges.
The problem we have is that it seems that when the three remote links operate concurrently the amount of lost packets is huge. When I shutdown the radio interfaces of two bridges, the remaining bridge makes an excellent link with the central node.
It seems that some hours are more critical than others, also the links operate much worse when there is some (small) network traffic in them.
I have read the 1310 manuals, and I can't find a sample configuration for point to multi-point links.
Does someone knows what radio interface configuration should I need to use to establish better quality communication?
I mean, perhaps the 1 x root - 3 x no root configuration is not recommendable for the multipoint link configuration.
Any hints will be welcome.
Best Regards,
Igor Sotelo.

Hi All,
Thank you for the information. I configured the distance on the root bridges, but the links showed instability.
I'm using a bi-directional amplifier. It has two pieces. According to the manuals, one is installed indoors, the other outdoors. I'm not sure if the indoors piece has the transmition module or it's only the injector.
We could establish connection at 7 km (around 4 milles) distance from the central point, using 24 dBi antennas on the other side.
However, we have issues with a near located point that is only 1.2 Km (around 0.8 milles) away and has a 13 dBi integrated patch antenna. The signal strenght value we get there is in the -62 to -68 dBm range, and is noticiably (5-10 dBm) lower than the strenght we get at other points of the link. And I have trouble establishing a high quality link with that point, using OFDM modulation. I tend to think that if I remove the amplifier I'm not going to reach that point at all. The EIRP on the central iste is 34 dBm / 2.5 watts, without amplifier it would be 26 dBm / 0.4 watts.
On the opposite sites the EIRP is 33 dBm / 2 watts using CCK or 28 dBm / 0.63 watts using OFDM.
When one looks at the central site from that point, an Motorola Canopy with passive reflector (EIRP 48 dBm or around 64 watts) can be seen. It doesn't have the same direction, but the opposite site must be large distance and could interfere with my wireless network. Attached is an amplified photo of the view. It's safe to assume that the Canopy operates in the 2.4 GHz frequency range.
Once I connect the point at 1.2 Km, the multipoint link loses its quality, and soon the lost packets get too frequent.
The CCK seems to be much more interfered than OFDM, I guess because of that canopies.
Another thing I'm wondering about is if the Aironet 1310 can continuosly switch CCK-OFDM over the same point - multipoint link, without losing packets.
What other parameters should I tweak? Is there a way to avoid interferences fromt the canopy?
I would like to apply 100 mWatts local power using the radio with OFDM, but it seems that's not possible.
Best Regards,
Igor Sotelo.

Pointer turned into a link hand, and I cannot click anything

I cannot seem to find the keyboard hotkey that will allow my cursor to become an arrow again. My dog stepped on my computer and it's permanently a hand pointer (link pointer). No idea how to fix it without a reboot - but I don't want to do that yet.
Thanks.
[I am using my work machine to type this]

I had three of these come to me in the past couple of days. All of the issues were pretty close to the same. One of them, the pointer lagged while trying to use it. The click would work. Another computer, the pointer would lag and the click did not work. I tried all of the above options and it would work, but only for awhile. I replaced all three of the computers track pads and it resolved the issue for all three.

Menu Button Links Aren't Lost When Adding Additional Premiere Chapter Points

I have a single overriding need in Encore. All other enhancements are secondary.
Problem: If you change Premiere chapter points in a sequence, the Encore menu buttons lose all the chapter point links when the sequence is reloaded.
Let's look at the work flow for a real world production situation.
I create a Premiere sequence with 16 sequence markers as chapter points. In Encore, I create a timeline using the encoded Premiere sequence. I then link buttons in a menu to the chapter points in the timeline. My customer reviews the proto and invariably wants the following changes:
1) Add additional chapter points.
2) Move existing chapter points.
3) Add or remove some footage from the Premiere sequence.
Ideally, I should be able to add or move chapter points in the Premiere sequence including adding or removing footage. Upon entering Encore, Encore should realize from the date of the encoded m2v and wav sequence files used by the Encore timeline that something has changed and reload the modified files into the timeline. By looking at the chapter names in the Premiere sequence, Encore should match the chapter names in the menu buttons with the Premiere chapter names. Encore should then assume that the Premiere chapter points have moved and accordingly have the menu button point to the new location on the timeline (at the appropriate GOP location).

Use the edit original command.
Encore takes you into Premiere.
Move the chapter points to different locations.
Save
Export -> Adobe Media Encoder (Use same file name)
Encore progress bar indicates it is reloading.
However, the Encore timeline shows the chapter points at the original locations.

IPv6 link-local address on point-to-point interface

Hello,
I'm a little bit confused. I know that there are two ways of assigning an IPv6 link-local address on interface. We can add it manually, or it is by default created automatically using modified EUI-64. But how is this address made when there is no MAC address on point-to-point link?
Thanks.
Martin

Hello,
sorry but I don't think that these reasons are reasonable. Why do they need to remember these addresses when are they used only on a link with internal processes? They cannot be used for management purposes, so I would say that it is easier for me to configure one loopback with global address at each router which would be easy to remember, announce it to IGP and it can be used for management, so as for BGP..and I don't need to care about all link local addresses I'm using in my network, which might contain hundreds of links..

Creating multiple point to point connection

Consider me mostly a newbie. I have a router that's connected to a WiFi radio system. The radio is, for all intent and purposes, transparent to the network.
Point is now, I want to connect via the same WiFi radio system to 4 other routers (each other router has the same radio system) on a point to point basis.
All five routers have static IPs.
The need is to create 4 static point-to-point link, over 1 single interface on the router that's connected to the radio system.
Can this be done? Is so, how? Help please?

First of all, I do not really see the advantage of configuring this as point-point. Appearently you want to make all traffic flow over the central router? The radio is actually a point-to-multipoint medium by nature. This means that the bandwidth on the link will be shared, no matter what you configure.
You could "enforce" point-point behaviour by means of static routing. On all spoke-routers you configure a single static route 0.0.0.0 with the hub router as the next hop.
On the the central router you can then put statics to the respective destinations. Very important is to use the interface command "no ip redirects"
This prevents icmp redirects being sent which would cause non-point-to-point behaviour. This implies that you have used the same ip subnet for all routers. This is what I would configure for this case.
Alternatively, you may use different subnets per router and apply secondary IP's on the hub.
Regards,
Leo

MPLS vs Point-to-Point over Citrix Performance Difference

We run Citrix at our remote locations. We have two circuits at each location. One is a point to point for backup and the other is an MPLS circuit that is our primary. Both circuits are T-1 speeds.
We have all thin clients at our remote locations. When communication goes through the point to point circuit it utilizes much more bandwidth. Maybe 1.2 Mbps on average but when we communication through the MPLS circuit only 800 Kbps of bandwith is actually being used.
Can anyone explain this? I was thinking that maybe MPLS does a faster job of switching the packets across the WAN and that the Citrix does not need to use as much bandwidth because of this. This analyis was completed across all of our sites and in each case Citrix uses more bandwidth on a point-to-point vs an MPLS circuit. I have not had any users complain when accessing either ciruits.
What do you think is causing this?

Hi,
I fully agree with Swaroop. Being an instructor teaching many MPLS classes I was frequently confronted with the opinion MPLS is "faster" as it is "switching". This is not true and I always countered this - provocantly - stating that MPLS is reducing throughput, so it is slower! What I mean writing this: given a certain topology for IP forwarding and turning on MPLS on it will increase the overhead (additional overhead by adding labels) and thus reduce end to end IP throughput. The lookup is done by the same algorithm (CEF) at wire speeds for IPv4 and labeled packets - there is no speed gain for either technology.
Do not get me wrong, this does not mean MPLS is "bad" and in fact the difference between pure IPv4 forwarding and MPLS forwarding is marginal and most likely irrelevant for any real environment. The advantages of MPLS are plenty and thus a marginal throughput difference is not the most important thing to consider.
I guess the idea of "switching is faster than routing" stems from the fact that there were times, when IPv4 forwarding ("routing") was done in CPU, thus was slow, whereas L2 forwarding ("switching") was done in hardware and thus was faster. It dates back to those days where we used AGS+ (an old router, which is EOS, EOL and most likely even EOeBay ;-) and f.e. Cat5000.
Now coming back to the observed behaviour in the original post there might be some reasons to explain it:
1) different L2 overhead as pointed out by Swaroop, especially as I would assume rather small average packetsizes.
2) Additional traffic on the P2P link not sent through the MPLS cloud - check your routing, if it is exactly the same for both links.
3) Measurement artefacts - as Swaroop pointed out. Is the load interval the same for both interfaces? I would rather use a packet analyzer than only go for a "show interface" to get precise values.
Hope this helps!
Regards, Martin

Bandwidth mismatch in Point-to-Point link

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for