Adding CC once again
--- On Tue, 1/15/13, Dhamija Amit <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Dhamija Amit <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Difference between ISIS NSR and ISIS NSF Cisco-Style > To: "Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2013, 8:40 AM > Hi Oliver > > I was testing NSR ( NSF - CIsco) in IOS-XR in GSR and CRS , > However i am able to see the LSP-DB's syncing in both the > routers. > > RP/0/8/CPU0:cr2.BLB#sh isis checkpoint lsp > Tue Jan 15 05:49:21.676 IST > > IS-IS COLT checkpoint LSPs > Level LSPID > Chkpt ID > 2 crs1.BLB.00-00 > 80002c38 > 2 cr2.BLB.00-00 > 80002c18 > 2 > dr2.blb-ASR1004.00-00 80002bf8 > 2 vrr2.BLB.00-00 > 80002bd8 > 1 > SAR3-test7.blb.00-00 80002bb8 > 1 crs1.BLB.00-00 > 80002b98 > 1 cr2.BLB.00-00 > 80002b78 > 1 > pr1.BLB-7206G1.00-00 80002b58 > 1 dr1.blb:inet.00-00 > 80002b38 > 1 cng1.BLB.00-00 > 80002b18 > 1 dr1.blb.00-00 > 80002af8 > 1 sar4.BLB-re1.00-00 > 80002ad8 > 1 sar5.BLB.00-00 > 80002ab8 > > Total LSP count: 13 (L1: 9, L2 4, local L1: 1, local L2 1) > RP/0/RP1/CPU0:crs1.BLB#sh isis checkpoint lsp > Tue Jan 15 06:09:50.825 IST > > IS-IS COLT checkpoint LSPs > Level LSPID > Chkpt ID > 2 crs1.BLB.00-00 > 80002e98 > 2 cr2.BLB.00-00 > 80002e78 > 2 > dr2.blb-ASR1004.00-00 80002e58 > 2 vrr2.BLB.00-00 > 80002e38 > 1 > SAR3-test7.blb.00-00 80002e18 > 1 crs1.BLB.00-00 > 80002df8 > 1 cr2.BLB.00-00 > 80002dd8 > 1 > pr1.BLB-7206G1.00-00 80002db8 > 1 dr1.blb:inet.00-00 > 80002d98 > 1 cng1.BLB.00-00 > 80002d78 > 1 dr1.blb.00-00 > 80002d58 > 1 sar4.BLB-re1.00-00 > 80002d38 > 1 sar5.BLB.00-00 > 80002d18 > Total LSP count: 13 (L1: 9, L2 4, local L1: 1, local L2 1) > > Just to make sure LSPDB syncing is happening with NSF cisco > style .Is this something newly added?? > > Thanks > Amit > > --- On Thu, 1/10/13, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Difference between ISIS NSR and > ISIS NSF Cisco-Style > > To: "Dhamija Amit" <[email protected]> > > Cc: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > > Date: Thursday, January 10, 2013, 1:00 PM > > > > Hi, > > > > well, I am not aware of any plans to implement ISIS > NSR > > which would sync > > LSPDB to standby in IOS or IOS-XR, something which > would not > > need the CSNP > > to rebuild the LSDB upon failover. > > So don't think we can fix this on our side if your ERX > > doesn't support the > > official "nsf ietf". Maybe you can check j-nsp if there > is a > > solution? If > > I recall correctly, there is successful "nsf cisco" > interop > > with JunOS > > (M/MX/T series), so possibly something specific to > JunosE? > > > > oli > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> From: Dhamija Amit <[email protected]> > > >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Difference between ISIS > NSR > > and ISIS NSF > > >>Cisco-Style > > >> To: "Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)" <[email protected]> > > >> Date: Thursday, January 10, 2013, 12:32 PM > > >> Hi Oli, > > >> > > >> Many Thanks for your prompt response. > > >> > > >> We have one interop issue where my peer is > Juniper > > ERX > > >> which doesn't support NSF IETF implementation > , So > > we are > > >> testing NSF cisco style where cisco router > sends > > special LSP > > >> a CSNP packet (purpose of sending special LSP > is to > > get all > > >> the valid LSP's from neigh.)and juniper ERX is > not > > >> understanding and is not sending PSNP is > response > > to > > >> CSNP and since delivery of ISIS is unreliable > cisco > > needs > > >> PSNP which he didnt get and after few number > of > > tries it > > >> reset the adj. > > >> > > >> My concern is there is no seperate NSR for > ISIS in > > cisco , > > >> only nsf cisco is NSR .NSR is a local > > mechanism but still > > >> some-how in this scenario we have to depend > upon > > neighbour. > > >> So that's why i would like to understand in > NSR do > > we really > > >> need some refresh mechanism from neighbour or > is it > > purely > > >> independent. > > >> > > >> Also you mentioned in nsf cisco-style only > > adjacency table > > >> is synced with standby RP , However in actuall > NSR > > both adj > > >> table & LSDB will be synced. > > >> > > >> So if we have NSR implementation ( with both > LSDB > > & Adj) > > >> syncing to standby , then still do we need to > > depend on > > >> neighs. > > >> > > >> Thanks. > > >> > > >> --- On Thu, 1/10/13, Oliver Boehmer > (oboehmer) > > <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) <[email protected]> > > >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Difference between ISIS > NSR > > and ISIS > > >> NSF Cisco-Style > > >> To: "Dhamija Amit" <[email protected]>, > > >> "[email protected]" > > >> <[email protected]> > > >> Date: Thursday, January 10, 2013, 11:54 AM > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >I would like to know the difference > between > > actuall ISIS > > >> NSR and ISIS NSF > > >> >cisco style. > > >> > > > >> >Most documentation says they are same , > however > > thereare > > >> some differences > > >> >also and it's not real NSR. Also i have > > seen in some > > >> packet sniffer in > > >> >cisco style cisco router sends a dummy > special > > CSNP > > >> packet to neighbour > > >> >to get all the valid LSP's in database. > > >> > > > >> >Will NSR also depends upon some refresh > > information from > > >> Neighbours ?? > > >> > > >> Which ISIS NSR implementation are you > referring > > to? > > >> > > >> I am asking as folks actually call "isis nsf > > cisco" > > >> "Non-Stop Routing". > > >> There is a point as this NSF/GR > implementation > > indeed does > > >> not require any > > >> special help of the neighbours (the special > CSNP > > packet > > >> triggering the > > >> neighbours to send all their LSPs is just > regular > > ISIS > > >> protocol > > >> mechanism), unlike BGP GR or OSPF GR which > requires > > protocol > > >> extensions. > > >> So it is likely an academic discussion if > "nsf > > cisco" is a > > >> creative GR or > > >> an NSR implementation. From a design > standpoint, > > "nsf cisco" > > >> does not > > >> require any new function/config on the > neighbors, > > so there > > >> is no > > >> difference. That's at least how I look at it. > > >> > > >> a "real" ISIS NSR implementation would require > to > > sync the > > >> complete LSP > > >> database between active and standby RP, not > only > > the > > >> adjacency table which > > >> is synced with "nsf cisco". But what would be > the > > benefit to > > >> your > > >> network/services/design over "nsf cisco"? > > >> > > >> oli > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
