I can only now laugh at 12.4(24)T1 , *Sep 29 14:05:08.219: VT[Vi3]:Applying config commands on process "VTEMPLATE Background Mgr" (187) *Sep 29 14:05:08.219: VT[Vi3]:ip vrf receive TEST *Sep 29 14:05:08.219: VT[Vi3]:no ip redirects *Sep 29 14:05:08.219: VT[Vi3]:no ip unreachables *Sep 29 14:05:08.223: VT[Vi3]:ip policy route-map TEST *Sep 29 14:05:08.223: VT[Vi3]:no logging event link-status *Sep 29 14:05:08.223: VT[Vi3]:no snmp trap link-status *Sep 29 14:05:08.223: VT[Vi3]:end *Sep 29 14:05:08.235: VT:Messages from (un)cloning Vi3: % Need to enable Policy Based Routing on the interface first
completely ignoring the order I specified in radius (pbr first, vrf receive second). So that is three distinct bugs now, all in the latest releases. Shame. Dave. David Freedman wrote: > Hah, SRD2a is even odder, refuses to even install the per-user vrf static! > > This has however enabled me to home in on CSCsu33006 which sounds more > likely, but it claims to be fixed in SRC4 and SRD which is annoying. > > Dave. > > > David Freedman wrote: >> Have just tried with another live box running SRD (the original SRD) - >> exactly the same story. >> >> Does anybody know if this is supported or not? I'm not seeing any >> documentation which suggests it is not. >> >> David. >> >> David Freedman wrote: >>> Yes, I woul absolutely love to, believe me :) >>> Need to make sure nobody steps in at this point and claims that this is >>> unsupported, if it is then am happy >>> to move it to SR and away from 12.4(T) completely. >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------ >>> David Freedman >>> Group Network Engineering >>> Claranet Limited >>> http://www.clara.net >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Justin Shore [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Mon 9/28/2009 04:06 >>> To: David Freedman >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Another bughunt, this time VRF PBR >>> >>> David Freedman wrote: >>>> wonder if anybody has come across this before, >>>> >>>> in 12.4(15)T, configuring a virtual-access per-user such: >>> I hate to suggest the obvious but since there are so many bugs in >>> 12.4(15)T have you considered bumping that to the latest minor rev? I >>> think they're up to T7 or T8 now (must have been some bug list). >>> >>> Justin >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >> > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
