Hello Les, I would say continue changing the mtu on your pings until you see the largest size you are able to ping, then make your mtu that minus 1500.
> From: [email protected] > Subject: CCIE_RS Digest, Vol 88, Issue 8 > To: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:00:03 -0400 > > Send CCIE_RS mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of CCIE_RS digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: MTU and Domain groups (Les Waller) > 2. pim accept-rp (Imran Ali) > 3. Re: pim accept-rp (Saleh Batouq) > 4. Proctor Labs (Houssam Chahine) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 18:39:05 +0200 > From: Les Waller <[email protected]> > To: ccie <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] MTU and Domain groups > Message-ID: > <cama81sgslqteehsrrpko+uezxunrnf13l9230zb2vroy66z...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Does a ping of 1496 work, but not 1497? > > Remember in Q-in-Q the four-byte overhead, on our 3560s we need to set the > system MTU to 1504. Not sure if that is the same problem or not, but you > should define exactly where the break in size first as part of your > troubleshooting. > > Les > > > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Eric campbell <[email protected]>wrote: > > > First I would apologize to the other poster for inadvertently Hijacking > > his thread. > > > > > > I will start a new thread at this point and maybe That will work. > > > > > > Folks, > > > > I just want to start off by saying thanks to all of the regulars in the > > group for the consistent knowledge sharing. > > > > I am a long time Lurker, but I have stumbled onto something which has me > > puzzled to say the least. > > > > I am attempting to create a bridge domain between two interfaces on an > > ASR 1006 and am running into a strange MTU issue. > > > > > > Everything is working fine I am tunneling my q-in-q/802.1q traffic > > popping and pushing the necessary tags and what not, however when I try > > to ping accross it using a 1500 byte packet with the df bit set i > > cannot. I can ping across it with a 1400 byte packet but of course this > > is not the magic number. > > > > I have tried setting the MTU at the > > interfaces involved (gig interfaces) but cannot for the life of me > > figure out why this is happening. This happens with a single tag as well > > as a stack of them. I do not have a BDI interface at the moment, but I > > am not sure i really need one since I am transiting the box. The only > > thing that i am able to think of at the moment is some sort of system > > wide MTU setting. This may become a no duh moment for me in the end, but > > I cannot find the command if it exists. Any guidance would be > > appreciated. If there is any information that is lacking let me know and > > i will get it out here. > > > > > > This is a rather small test environment at the moment. > > > > I have an Adtran 8044 - directly to the ASR on gig 0/1/1 the ASR then > > bridges this traffic to the interface Gig 0/1/2 - which then places it on > > the wire as a single tagged trunk going into a 6509 trunk port and finally > > terminating on an SVI. On the other side of the Adtran is a simple laptop > > connected to the 8044 which is where I am originating the 1500 byte pings > > that terminate to the SVI on the 6509. > > > > The 8044 simply takes the packet in as a native packet in this case, > > applies a 802.1q tag to it, and then ships it out a trunk port to the ASR. > > The 8044 has a MTu set at 2000 on this port, The ASR has an interface level > > MTU of 1600 and the 6509 has an MTU of 1500. Also I have tried it with the > > MTu set at Max on the 6509 as well. Like I said I am sure that in a setup > > as small as this the answer is staring me in the eye. > > > > Since the 6509 is receiving a trunk port off of the ASR with a single tag > > applied I feel the problem is probably not there. The Adtran takes the > > taffic in from the laptop at 1500 MTU and then applies its tag then > > shipping it out. > > > > I have also tried performing this ping from a 7206 I have that is spare > > set up like the laptop in this case using the same parameters. > > > > Thanks for assisting > > > > > > > > Thanks to all, > > Eric > > _______________________________________________ > > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > > visit www.ipexpert.com > > > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > > > > http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs > > > > > > -- > Les Waller, Network Engineer ..:|:..:|:.. > > Home Page: *http://www.facebook.com/groups/325762454132531/* > * > *MBA, CISSP, CCNP/CCDA > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 08:58:55 +0300 > From: Imran Ali <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] pim accept-rp > Message-ID: > <cah7egzdfkfyvfsrguc3-q5wszwyacjibepo7sjoyxestufu...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > hi all > > guys if we are using auto rp , and let say task suggest we allow only > *,G joins only for active groups. > > do we need to allow auto rp groups in accept rp ? > > ip pim accept-rp auto ALLOWED > > ip access-list ALLOWED > permit 224.0.1.40 > permit 224.0.1.39 > permit 224.1.1.1 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:13:21 +0400 > From: Saleh Batouq <[email protected]> > To: Imran Ali <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] pim accept-rp > Message-ID: > <caezok32zd7ou9nx2uc1qy9la-m6+mchof921l4fbap8j05k...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I understand from your question is that you need to only use the SHARED > TREE (*,G) and not to build the SOURCE BASED TREE (S,G) so you have only > two options. > 1. ip pim spt-threshold infinity ACL . where the ACL is a standard acl that > specify the Groups. > 2. biderectional pim. Enabled in your network. > On May 13, 2013 10:04 AM, "Imran Ali" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > hi all > > > > guys if we are using auto rp , and let say task suggest we allow > > only > > *,G joins only for active groups. > > > > do we need to allow auto rp groups in accept rp ? > > > > ip pim accept-rp auto ALLOWED > > > > ip access-list ALLOWED > > permit 224.0.1.40 > > permit 224.0.1.39 > > permit 224.1.1.1 > > _______________________________________________ > > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > > visit www.ipexpert.com > > > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > > > > http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 11:29:56 +0300 > From: Houssam Chahine <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Proctor Labs > Message-ID: > <capapdxcqy1dqu_oijiufpj24cho0hezryktte7auiv4zj2y...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I have a small question dedicated to the Teachers, > > I am practicing recently using proctor labs, and my question is, is there > any possibility once you load the initial configuration, it doesn't load > perfectly? Today i was doing Vol3-Lab2C. Many tasks that i was supposed to > configure was already there, for example: > > 1- I was supposed to enable " Portfast Trunk" on the appropriate interfaces > but it was already there. > 2- I am supposed to have a problem pinging BB1, but i didn't face any > problem pinging it. > 3- on Cat1 fa 0/11 i was supposed to disable port security for mac > 0006.5331.9e41 which was not there... instead i had a log error since the > moment i typed my credentials, "Security violation caused by MAc > 0000.0000.0001 ... > 4- There is still some that didn't come to my mind now. > > In brief, for the second time so far, once i compare the initial config of > some devices to the initial config file that comes with the book, i found > there is difference, or the task that i am suppose to accomplish, is > already preconfigured. > > Please advise. > > > End of CCIE_RS Digest, Vol 88, Issue 8 > ************************************** _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
