My recent post about problems with old modems has generated a lot of comments with some very useful ideas, but nobody addressed the question “why was a long string of ones not a problem?”, so let's start there. Almost all WAN synchronous protocols in use today are descendants of venerable SDLC invented by IBM more than 30 years ago.

SDLC was later extended to support connectionless and balanced modes, resulting in HDLC. PPP is just an extension of HDLC, adding support for negotiations and standard layer-3 protocol demultiplexing.

William Chu sent me a working configuration he uses to measure jitter with the IP SLA tool and react to excessive jitter on the primary link. First you have to create the jitter probe with the IP SLA commands:

ip sla monitor 3000
 type jitter →
   dest-ipaddr 199.11.18.168 dest-port 12333 →
   source-ipaddr 199.11.18.169 codec g729a →
   codec-numpackets 100
 tos 184
 frequency 10

Note: The continuation character (→) indicates that the configuration command spans multiple lines

In the pre-DSL days, you had two options to get a short-haul high-speed link (at least in Europe): take E1 (or fractional E1) from a telecom (which was more expensive than a highway robbery, as the cost was recurring) or use baseband modems with proprietary encoding techniques on physical copper wires (assuming you could get them).

As it turned out, some of these encoding techniques were not as good as the others (but the equipment was relatively cheap, so the budget limits usually forced the decision). We had our own share of modem-related problems, but they were never as bad as what I've heard from one of my students: his modems would lose synchronization when transmitting a long string of zeroes over a regular synchronous serial interface; ping ip 1.2.3.4 size 1000 data 0000 would be enough to bring down the link.

Did you believe MPLS TE was a quality-of-service feature? Did someone persuade you it’s mandatory to run OSPF or IS-IS if you want to deploy MPLS TE? I’ve collected a few more myths like these two and explained the actual facts behind them in 10 MPLS traffic engineering myths and half truths published by ComputerWeekly..

In a previous post, I've described how you can turn your router into a TFTP server. As you can configure the router to serve any file residing on it, you can also pull startup and running configuration from it with TFTP, providing that you configure:

tftp-server nvram:startup-config
tftp-server system:running-config

Warning: Due to total lack of any security features in TFTP protocol, use this functionality only in lab environment.

I should probably write this one on April 1st, but maybe October 31st is not such a bad choice after all … if you configure no service prompt config, the configuration prompt is gone; when you enter the configuration mode with the configure terminal command, you get an empty line (like you did with Cisco software release 9.1 some 15 years ago). Similarly, you can disable command-line editing with the no editing line configuration command or terminal no editing exec-level command. If only there would be a way to disable the context-sensitive help :)

I did a few follow-up tests with the distribute-list in OSPF configuration command and stumbled across a few interesting facts (IOS release 12.4(15)T1 on a 3725 platform):

• Although the router allows you to configure distribute-list acl in interface, it does not work. Routes received through that interface (or having the interface as the next-hop) are not filtered.
• When you apply the distribute-list in command, the routing table is not changed. Clearing the IP routing table does not help, you have to clear ALL OSPF processes (including bringing down all OSPF adjacencies) with the clear ip ospf process command for the route filter to take effect.
• The same limitations don't apply in the other direction: when you remove the distribute-list in, SPF is triggered and the routes appear in the IP routing table automatically.
• The somewhat undocumented gateway option of the distribute-list in command works, but not quite as I would expect: the IP next hop, not the router-ID of the router advertising the IP prefix is matched by the prefix-list.

And, last but not least, I've lab-verified my previous claim: applying the distribute-list in on a transit router can result in a black hole, as the LSAs themselves are not filtered.

John S. Pumphrey recently asked an interesting question: “Can the router send an e-mail when an interface goes down?” The enterprisey solution is obvious: deploy a high-end EMS to collect SNMP traps and use its API to write a custom module that would use a MQ interface to alert the operator. Fortunately, Event Manager applets in Cisco IOS provide action mail command (available in 12.3(14)T and 12.4) that can send an e-mail to a SMTP server straight from the router.

A while ago I wrote about cached CEF adjacencies and the impact they have on ARP caching. If you ever need to, you can debug them with the debug ip cef table command. As this command might produce a lot of output in a production network, always use it in combination with an access-list that limits the debugging to the selected address range.

Alternatively, you can use the debug arp adjacency command, but you cannot limit its output with an access-list

This problem is rare but tantalizing enough to warrant mentioning: OSPF neighbors are forever stuck in the EXSTART state (occasionally going DOWN and back to EXSTART).