![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cdc8df7ce0f887b1f21d656c6097ac23.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
2 May
2013
2 May
'13
12:34 p.m.
I agree with Kris here, lots of vrfs out there on these things. I don't mind in the end, its not a critical feature but a nice to have. Theres more important things to be done at the moment.
--
Regards,
Darius Jan Seroka
dariusjs@gmail.com
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Adam Armstrong adama@memetic.org wrote:
> Tell Cisco. :D
>
>
> Kristoffer Björk kristoffer.bjork@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Not to be rude but there are alot of people doing routing with multiple
> VRF's in the 6500, with sup720 and sup2T etc it's actually quite nice as a
> router. I find it's much more common then the ASR's in enterprise networks
> that i've been working in.
>
> Cheers.
> //K
>
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Adam Armstrong adama@memetic.org wrote:
>
>> 6500? Why, that's a switch! No need for qa'd vrf snmp support there!
>>
>> Muwhahaha.
>>
>>
>> Darius Seroka dariusjs@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi List,
>>
>> Has anyone got a Cisco 6500 series on observium with VRF's? I've recently
>> been adding some cisco gear to observium and the vrf's don't get picked up.
>> It did pick up VRF's from the pair of ASR1002
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Darius
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> observium mailing list
>> observium@observium.org
>> http://postman.memetic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/observium
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> observium mailing list
> observium@observium.org
> http://postman.memetic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/observium
>
>