[c-nsp] PPP Multilink with L2TP interfaces
howdy ho, i am trying to get a CPE to 1) fire up a PPPoE session over an Ethernet interface to bring up a Dialer1 interface 2) over this interface, fire up 2 L2TP sessions (Virtual-PPP1 and Virtual-PPP2 and put these in a multilink bundel) The L2TP tunnels are terminating on 196.30.121.42 Now all works well except for the Multilink PPP part. the 2 L2TP sessions come up individual but there is no sign of any attempt to multilink (nothing seen in any debug ppp multilink) I have included my current config if anybody can tell me if what i am trying to do is even possible and how to fix my config i would be very happy and thankful thanx in advance === CPE configuration = Current configuration : 3481 bytes ! version 12.4 no service timestamps debug uptime no service timestamps log uptime service password-encryption ! hostname l2tp-multilink ! boot-start-marker boot-end-marker ! logging buffered 4096 debugging enable secret 5 $1$8ZOc$o9WmyJlHqGd1R8E/iYAR0/ ! no aaa new-model ip cef ! ! ! ! no ip domain lookup ip auth-proxy max-nodata-conns 3 ip admission max-nodata-conns 3 vpdn enable ! l2tp-class l2tpclass1 authentication password 7 15115E0B2C7221027123 ! ! multilink virtual-template 1 ! ! no crypto engine onboard 0 ! ! pseudowire-class pwclass1 encapsulation l2tpv2 protocol l2tpv2 l2tpclass1 ip local interface Dialer1 ! pseudowire-class pwclass2 encapsulation l2tpv2 protocol l2tpv2 l2tpclass1 ip local interface Dialer1 ! ! ! ! ! interface Loopback0 ip address 172.16.1.1 255.255.255.255 ! interface Null0 no ip unreachables ! interface FastEthernet0/0 no ip address speed 100 full-duplex pppoe enable group global pppoe-client dial-pool-number 1 ! interface FastEthernet0/1 no ip address duplex auto speed auto ! interface Virtual-PPP1 ip address negotiated ip mtu 1452 ip virtual-reassembly no logging event link-status no peer neighbor-route no cdp enable ppp chap hostname testuser1 ppp chap password 7 ppp pap sent-username testuser1 password 7 ppp multilink pseudowire 196.30.121.42 10 pw-class pwclass1 ! interface Virtual-Template1 ip unnumbered Loopback0 ppp multilink ! interface Virtual-PPP2 ip address negotiated ip mtu 1452 ip virtual-reassembly no logging event link-status no peer neighbor-route no cdp enable ppp chap hostname testuser2 ppp chap password 7 XXX ppp pap sent-username testuser2 password 7 XXX ppp multilink pseudowire 196.30.121.42 100 pw-class pwclass2 ! interface Dialer1 mtu 1492 ip address negotiated ip virtual-reassembly encapsulation ppp ip tcp adjust-mss 1452 dialer pool 1 dialer-group 1 ppp chap hostname testuser1 ppp chap password 7 ppp pap sent-username testuser1 password 7 ! no ip forward-protocol nd ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Virtual-PPP1 ip route 196.30.121.42 255.255.255.255 Dialer1 ! ! ip http server no ip http secure-server ! ip access-list extended check_packets_in permit ahp any any permit esp any any permit udp any eq isakmp any eq isakmp permit ip any any ! access-list 1 permit any access-list 2 deny any access-list 3 permit 10.0.0.2 access-list 3 permit 206.64.200.15 access-list 3 permit 196.22.64.194 access-list 3 permit 10.222.0.1 access-list 3 permit 10.222.0.2 access-list 3 permit 10.244.0.2 no cdp run ! ! ! ! control-plane ! ! banner motd ^CC ## #You Should Not Be Here - Logg Off Imediately Thankyou # ## ## ## ^C ! line con 0 exec-timeout 0 0 line aux 0 exec-timeout 0 0 line vty 0 4 access-class 3 in exec-timeout 0 0 password 7 1315181718 login line vty 5 8 exec-timeout 0 0 no login line vty 9 15 no login ! scheduler allocate 2 1000 end l2tp-multilink# - I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid. Nic Tjirkalli Verizon Business South Africa Network Strategy Team Verizon Business is a brand of Verizon South Africa (Pty) Ltd. This e-mail is strictly confidential and intended only for use by the addressee unless otherwise indicated. Company Information:http:// www.verizonbusiness.com/za/contact/legal/ This e-mail is strictly confidential and intended only for use by the addressee unless otherwise indicated. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Error using VFI with local VLAN's on 7600/RSP720 12.2 SRC1
Not sure if this would work. Stephen: What are you trying to achieve? oli Rubens Kuhl Jr. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Monday, September 01, 2008 1:27 AM: Can he add VLAN translation to the scenario ? Rubens On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stephen Fulton wrote on Sunday, August 31, 2008 2:03 AM: Hi all, I'm testing out VFI's in a lab, and I've run into the following when I attempt to add a second VLAN to the VFI instance. well, adding a 2nd SVI/Vlan to a VFI doesn't make sense (at least to me), if you want to bridge both segments (and the remote VFIs) together, you would put them into the same broadcast domain (speak: vlan). You can't use VFI/VPLS to create a single bridge domain for two local vlans. oli ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing
Hi guys, I'm sorry if my questions is rather out of cisco's things. I've read books about interdomain multicast routing (also one from cisco press). From what I get, the solutions offered is PIM SM - MBGP - MSDP. My questions is : 1. what about using PIM Bidir for interdomain multicast? Is it possible to implement it in Cisco? 2. Has BGMP been being implemented in vendors? Thanks a lot for your response ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] exceeding the hardware maximum routes in a 720BXL
Hi, Just a quick question what will happen if you exceed the maximum routes That the FIB TCAM can store. c7600#sh mls cef maximum-routes FIB TCAM maximum routes : === Current :- --- IPv4 + MPLS - 512k (default) IPv6 + IP Multicast - 256k (default) c7600# Will switch completely to software routing, or just switch the Excess routes to software routing? Or will it drop routes or worst Still crash!? Also is there a best practice on changing the default maximum routes Allocations? Thanks Gordon ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing
Hi, The combination you've described has been working for many years, very well tested, supported by all major vendors. PIM (bidir as well) is used for intradomain multicast routing independently of interdomain multicast (MSDP/MBGP). Cisco does support PIM Bidir Cheers, Jeff P.S. Best book ever - Interdomain Mutlicast Routing by Edwards/Giuliano/Wright -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Muarwi Sent: maandag 1 september 2008 9:49 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing Hi guys, I'm sorry if my questions is rather out of cisco's things. I've read books about interdomain multicast routing (also one from cisco press). From what I get, the solutions offered is PIM SM - MBGP - MSDP. My questions is : 1. what about using PIM Bidir for interdomain multicast? Is it possible to implement it in Cisco? 2. Has BGMP been being implemented in vendors? Thanks a lot for your response ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] exceeding the hardware maximum routes in a 720BXL
Gordon Bezzina wrote: Hi, Just a quick question what will happen if you exceed the maximum routes That the FIB TCAM can store. c7600#sh mls cef maximum-routes FIB TCAM maximum routes : === Current :- --- IPv4 + MPLS - 512k (default) IPv6 + IP Multicast - 256k (default) c7600# Will switch completely to software routing, or just switch the Excess routes to software routing? Or will it drop routes or worst Still crash!? it will switch to partial h/w, partial s/w. a wildcard will be installed that matches on anything that doesn't fit into the table (i.e. it'll be a punt-to-software for 0/0). Also is there a best practice on changing the default maximum routes Allocations? default is 50/50 split between IPv4/MPLS / IPv6/Multicast. its perhaps difficult to crystal-ball uptake of IPv6 over the next 2 years, but its probably fair to say the current defaults are ok. cheers, lincoln. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] MWR 1941
Do anybody know if MWR 1941 DC supports HWIC-4ESW? Thank U. -- Respect, Andy Oleynik ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] RES: Sup720 Config registry
Notice this can be broken due to CSCeg76624, CSCeg22424 or CSCed58891. You're safe if you're running 8.5(1) though. []´s -Mensagem original- De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Em nome de [EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviada em: domingo, 31 de agosto de 2008 09:48 Para: Brett Clausenhauf; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Assunto: Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 Config registry You can check the config-register setting on SP by: rem comm sw sh ver | i register SP is probably still set to 2142. You should change it to 0x2102 by going to config on RP. When you save the config it will be saved on SP also. After saving you can issue: rem comm sw sh ver | i register It should indicate 0x2102 aftrer reboot. Asad -- Original message -- From: Brett Clausenhauf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey Guys.. I have a query I cannot seem to find any answer too. When a sup720 module is booting, if you do a CTRL + Break into rommon change the confreg register on the SP module (Changed to confreg 0x2142 NOT the RP module, what does this actually do? I did this by mistake whilst troubleshooting an issue. The issue is now resolved but I never got the opportunity to put this back (Also not sure what to put it back too). The module boots up the config appears to be working 100 percent fine... I am very concerned if doing this does anything detrimental that is going to be a concern later. Can anybody who might know advise? It would be very much appreciated.. Thanks in advance. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] RES: Cisco Catalyst 6513 IOS version
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Lastest one running SXH1. No problems so far with FWSM, ACE and 6748s. we've got a 12.2(33)SXH3 box up and alive now - so far so much better than SXH2 (and 2b) but we've yet to drive packets through in anger. certainly looks like we might be SXH'd by the new year (but dont quote me on that! ;-) ) Just don't try and scp anything from it... ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing
This has been a confusing subject for me. If you enabled msdp between 2 pim sm domains and enabled mc routing on the intermediate bgp routers while using normal non-mbgp routing wouldn't mc still work? Why would you want to use mbgp unless you wanted mc routes to take a different path than unicast routes? Do most sp these days support mc in their networks for customers? Thanks mike -Original Message- From: Jeff Tantsura [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 4:53 AM To: 'Muarwi' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing Hi, The combination you've described has been working for many years, very well tested, supported by all major vendors. PIM (bidir as well) is used for intradomain multicast routing independently of interdomain multicast (MSDP/MBGP). Cisco does support PIM Bidir Cheers, Jeff P.S. Best book ever - Interdomain Mutlicast Routing by Edwards/Giuliano/Wright -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Muarwi Sent: maandag 1 september 2008 9:49 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing Hi guys, I'm sorry if my questions is rather out of cisco's things. I've read books about interdomain multicast routing (also one from cisco press). From what I get, the solutions offered is PIM SM - MBGP - MSDP. My questions is : 1. what about using PIM Bidir for interdomain multicast? Is it possible to implement it in Cisco? 2. Has BGMP been being implemented in vendors? Thanks a lot for your response ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ Note: This message and any attachments is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, legally privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or return email and destroy or delete this message along with any attachments immediately. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] RES: Cisco Catalyst 6513 IOS version
Hi, we've got a 12.2(33)SXH3 box up and alive now - so far so much better than SXH2 (and 2b) but we've yet to drive packets through in anger. certainly looks like we might be SXH'd by the new year (but dont quote me on that! ;-) ) Just don't try and scp anything from it... 8-) dont worry - i saw _that_ posting. anything with SXH in the subject line right now gets my immediate attention (remember that spammers ;-) ) alan ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing
Hi, On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 11:45:06AM -0400, Mike Louis wrote: Do most sp these days support mc in their networks for customers? Do you know *any* SPs these days that support multicast? Yes, there are a few that have it still turned on, but does that mean it's a first grade, fully supported, product? We disabled external multicasting in our SP network last week - because there was only minimal customer demand in the last 6 or 7 years, and on those few occasions, I usually spent ages diagnosing black hole issues at one of our upstreams (turned up a new line, forgot to enable PIM on it, and such things). IPv4 multicast is extremely painful to debug. The whole MSDP/MBGP/PIM model is too complicated to maintain and too brittle for stable operations (SSM might be better - we never tried). gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: +49-89-35655025[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpbhzXaEu0uv.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Sup720 Config registry
I have seen an interesting one as well... I had a 7606 with a sup32 out of sync once, and any input from the console port (or sometimes just on it's own) it would halt the switch processor and force a reboot... I'd suggest you make sure the SP and RP are always in sync :) Chris On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 03:28:18PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Brett Clausenhauf wrote: Can anybody who might know advise? It would be very much appreciated.. I had a similar issue back in SXE days (2+ years ago) where the conf-reg would get out of sync between modules on the Sup720-3bxl (it would show conf-reg 0x2102 in IOS, but rebooting would go into rommon). To fix it, I would simply do a conf-reg 0x2102 and wr in regular config mode, which seemed to set this conf-reg on all modules, making the problem go away. I've seen a couple really cool side-effects from an out-of-sync config register between RP and SP... For example, I was once rebooting a sup720 to change the cef maximum-routes tcam partitioning, and as soon as it would boot back up it would install a reboot in 10 minutes rule, like what Jared mentioned here: http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2006-October/035266.html After sitting through a lot of automatic reboots and trying everything known to man to stop them, I finally found the problem was a desynced config-register that you couldn't see from IOS at all (you had to start a shell on the SP to see it), which caused the SP to not process the RP's new tcam partition config. Apparently there was some edge condition which might need you to reboot twice to fully update the SP, so Cisco just wrote code to automatically reboot if the SP wasn't updated correctly. Combine that with an out-of-sync config-register and you've got lots of endless rebooting fun. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing
Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 11:45:06AM -0400, Mike Louis wrote: Do most sp these days support mc in their networks for customers? Do you know *any* SPs these days that support multicast? Yes, there are a few that have it still turned on, but does that mean it's a first grade, fully supported, product? We disabled external multicasting in our SP network last week - because there was only minimal customer demand in the last 6 or 7 years, and on those few occasions, I usually spent ages diagnosing black hole issues at one of our upstreams (turned up a new line, forgot to enable PIM on it, and such things). IPv4 multicast is extremely painful to debug. The whole MSDP/MBGP/PIM model is too complicated to maintain and too brittle for stable operations (SSM might be better - we never tried). SSM is certainly *easier* to troubleshoot as is IPv6 embedded RP. I wouldn't say they're good though; a large portion of the issues I've run into are much more general e.g. firewalls, lack of IGMP forwarding, lack of layer2 support, TTL problems, MTU problems, etc. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] real BGP test router
Hi, I know I can use quagga or dynamips/gns3 to validate my labs. But something real where other person add/remove routes should be great. so I'm looking for a real BGP router on internet to test my configuration. A router where peoble can ask a peering to test their conf. Regards, Julien. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Few questions regarding fixed vs modular and when which is better.
Seems like a lot of extra cabling gymnastics to compensate for the failure of Cisco to provide an affordable 48-port dual-PSU 1U switch. Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shane Short Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:30 AM To: cisco-nsp Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Few questions regarding fixed vs modular and when which is better. I've had pretty good success doing this in the past, however, I've run double the density and split it over two racks. Ie, 24 Servers per rack, so a 48port switch per rack, with 48 ties between the rack to tie it all together, each server would hit the switch in it's own rack, then tie over to the adjacent rack. Idea generally behind this was to have the servers/switches on opposing phases to eliminate power problems, without having to get Dual Power supplies in the switches themselves. -Shane On 29/08/2008, at 6:45 PM, Dean Smith wrote: Surely 2 basic Switches - With Servers dual homed across giving you independent uplinks to the core, dual control planes and dual power etc gives far better resilience at the price point than a simple switch with an extra PSU ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: 29 August 2008 08:34 To: Pete Templin Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Few questions regarding fixed vs modular and when which is better. Hi, On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:56:51AM -0500, Pete Templin wrote: Have you looked at their product line lately? I attended one of their LAN Switching Update events, and learned a lot about their new products, such as 1U 3560E models with 24 or 48 10/100/1000 ports and two X2 10G uplinks and dual power. Might that suffice? Still full L3 with the L3 price tag. Something like a 2960G-24TC with dual power would be cool. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: +49-89-35655025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing
Hi Mike, Normally MSDP will work with just unicast BGP, but then RPF check changed between IOS and IOS XR... In IOS a router performing an RPF check looks first at the multicast routing table, and if it doesn't find a match it then looks at the unicast table. In IOS XR if you have any routes in the multicast table, and you do not find the one you are looking for, RPF fails. Doesn't matter whether or not the prefix is in the unicast table. You may have a situation where you are given multicast feeds (e.g. IPTV) and are only supplied with multicast BGP routes because they do not want any of your unicast traffic. You may well wish to receive those feeds, and also receive multicasts from sources which only advertises unicast routes. If I understand the RPF correctly, this presents you with a problem and may have to look at statics/ACLs etc. Paul. Mike Louis wrote: This has been a confusing subject for me. If you enabled msdp between 2 pim sm domains and enabled mc routing on the intermediate bgp routers while using normal non-mbgp routing wouldn't mc still work? Why would you want to use mbgp unless you wanted mc routes to take a different path than unicast routes? Do most sp these days support mc in their networks for customers? Thanks mike -Original Message- From: Jeff Tantsura [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 4:53 AM To: 'Muarwi' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing Hi, The combination you've described has been working for many years, very well tested, supported by all major vendors. PIM (bidir as well) is used for intradomain multicast routing independently of interdomain multicast (MSDP/MBGP). Cisco does support PIM Bidir Cheers, Jeff P.S. Best book ever - Interdomain Mutlicast Routing by Edwards/Giuliano/Wright -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Muarwi Sent: maandag 1 september 2008 9:49 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing Hi guys, I'm sorry if my questions is rather out of cisco's things. I've read books about interdomain multicast routing (also one from cisco press). From what I get, the solutions offered is PIM SM - MBGP - MSDP. My questions is : 1. what about using PIM Bidir for interdomain multicast? Is it possible to implement it in Cisco? 2. Has BGMP been being implemented in vendors? Thanks a lot for your response ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ Note: This message and any attachments is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, legally privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or return email and destroy or delete this message along with any attachments immediately. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ -- HEAnet Limited Ireland's Education Research Network 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1, Ireland Tel: +353.1.6609040 Web: http://www.heanet.ie Company registered in Ireland: 275301 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] RTP related question
Hi I couldn't imagine how to test RTP between 2 points. How do I know remote RTP ports open? Sincerely, Tseveen ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing
Hi Jeff, thanks a lot for your response. Then how about BGMP (RFC 3913) ? Is it still a proposed protocol? Thanks . On 9/1/08, Jeff Tantsura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, The combination you've described has been working for many years, very well tested, supported by all major vendors. PIM (bidir as well) is used for intradomain multicast routing independently of interdomain multicast (MSDP/MBGP). Cisco does support PIM Bidir Cheers, Jeff P.S. Best book ever - Interdomain Mutlicast Routing by Edwards/Giuliano/Wright -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Muarwi Sent: maandag 1 september 2008 9:49 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing Hi guys, I'm sorry if my questions is rather out of cisco's things. I've read books about interdomain multicast routing (also one from cisco press). From what I get, the solutions offered is PIM SM - MBGP - MSDP. My questions is : 1. what about using PIM Bidir for interdomain multicast? Is it possible to implement it in Cisco? 2. Has BGMP been being implemented in vendors? Thanks a lot for your response ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] RTP related question
As RTP contains no backward acknowledgment mechanisms (other than RTCP reports), you really can't. You need to use a VoIP user agent and generate a bidirectional RTP stream (a conversation) and verify media receipt with a packet capture or subjectively, or via some means that the user agent provides. On Mon, September 1, 2008 9:54 pm, Tseveendorj Ochirlantuu wrote: Hi I couldn't imagine how to test RTP between 2 points. How do I know remote RTP ports open? Sincerely, Tseveen ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel: (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599 ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] RES: Cisco Catalyst 6513 IOS version
We've been running a mix od SXF, and SXH (un)fortunately. SXF is pretty solid. If you don't have any features(like VPN, adjust-mss specifically), or modules which require an SXH train(i.e. 6716) I'd suggest you stick with safe harbor SXF. The biggest running issue I have with SXH, is not containing the ISSU capability in the non-modular flavor. Modular still makes me nervous for production. --Pete On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 11:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, we've got a 12.2(33)SXH3 box up and alive now - so far so much better than SXH2 (and 2b) but we've yet to drive packets through in anger. certainly looks like we might be SXH'd by the new year (but dont quote me on that! ;-) ) Just don't try and scp anything from it... 8-) dont worry - i saw _that_ posting. anything with SXH in the subject line right now gets my immediate attention (remember that spammers ;-) ) alan ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing
The large ones do. I know Sprint has been doing it for over 11 years. I would say that most do not charge or if they do it is minimal. NOC support may vary from provider to provider. On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Mike Louis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This has been a confusing subject for me. If you enabled msdp between 2 pim sm domains and enabled mc routing on the intermediate bgp routers while using normal non-mbgp routing wouldn't mc still work? Why would you want to use mbgp unless you wanted mc routes to take a different path than unicast routes? Do most sp these days support mc in their networks for customers? Thanks mike -Original Message- From: Jeff Tantsura [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 4:53 AM To: 'Muarwi' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing Hi, The combination you've described has been working for many years, very well tested, supported by all major vendors. PIM (bidir as well) is used for intradomain multicast routing independently of interdomain multicast (MSDP/MBGP). Cisco does support PIM Bidir Cheers, Jeff P.S. Best book ever - Interdomain Mutlicast Routing by Edwards/Giuliano/Wright -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Muarwi Sent: maandag 1 september 2008 9:49 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing Hi guys, I'm sorry if my questions is rather out of cisco's things. I've read books about interdomain multicast routing (also one from cisco press). From what I get, the solutions offered is PIM SM - MBGP - MSDP. My questions is : 1. what about using PIM Bidir for interdomain multicast? Is it possible to implement it in Cisco? 2. Has BGMP been being implemented in vendors? Thanks a lot for your response ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ Note: This message and any attachments is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, legally privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or return email and destroy or delete this message along with any attachments immediately. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] mpls ldp discovery transport-address
Hi, Below is the output of sh mpls ldp discovery. Here LDP identifier and LDP discovery source are different. I can change discovery source using mpls ldp discovery transport-address but my question here is what is the best practice and what are the benefits? is it using both LDP identifier and Discovery source same or different? One of the benefit I can see is if I use the same IP for both is I can reduce the number of labels. Any other benefit wrt security!!! router1# sh mpls ldp discovery Local LDP Identifier: 212.74.65.105:0 Discovery Sources: Interfaces: GigabitEthernet0/1 (ldp): xmit/recv LDP Id: 212.74.65.124:0 GigabitEthernet0/2 (ldp): xmit/recv LDP Id: 212.74.65.126:0 Targeted Hellos: 212.74.65.105 - 212.74.65.124 (ldp): passive, xmit/recv LDP Id: 212.74.65.124:0 212.74.65.105 - 212.74.65.126 (ldp): passive, xmit/recv LDP Id: 212.74.65.126:0 router1#sh mpls fo router1#sh mpls forwarding-table | in 212.74.65.124 4560 Pop tag 212.74.65.124/32 0 Gi0/1 212.74.88.233 router1#sh mpls forwarding-table | in 212.74.65.105 router1# Regards, Vikas Sharma ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] mpls ldp discovery transport-address
Vikas Sharma wrote on Tuesday, September 02, 2008 6:25 AM: Hi, Below is the output of sh mpls ldp discovery. Here LDP identifier and LDP discovery source are different. I can change discovery source using mpls ldp discovery transport-address but my question here is what is the best practice and what are the benefits? is it using both LDP identifier and Discovery source same or different? best practice is to use a loopback as LDP router-ID and advertise this address as transport address (i.e. use the default behavior). This has multiple advantages: - less config - if you have multiple links between two nodes, you don't have to worry about advertising the same address on both links - it allows you to keep the session established even if the link supplying the transport address goes down (good for convergence) Or where you thinking about using a dedicated loopback as transport address? Not sure what the benefit of this would be. I've seen the transport address being used in some cases where the LDP router-ID is not advertised in IGP (for whatever reason), but these were corner cases.. One of the benefit I can see is if I use the same IP for both is I can reduce the number of labels. Any other benefit wrt security!!! not sure what you mean by reducing number of labels.. Number of IGP labels is usually not a concern. Not sure about the security argument. oli ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
