Re: [c-nsp] segment routing/evpn on ASR920
On 30 January 2019 15:15:02 GMT, Aaron Gould wrote: >I read that SR/SPRING is an alternative to LDP or RSVP... seems that >SR/SPRING is a label distribution protocol. Meaning, in my mind, it's >a way >to learn labels...mpls labels I guess. If so, would we refer to EVPN >as >EVPN-SR? If so, would it follow that a non-sr network, one that has >employed ldp for label learning, with evpn, would be referred to as >EVPN-LDP >? I'm not thinking so. > >Further, I recall reading that EVPN is Control Plane, and has a few >different options for Fwd'ing plane... > >EVPN-VXLAN >EVPN-PBB >EVPN-MPLS >...perhaps others... > >Tom, I wonder if we/you should look for ASR920 docs/support for >EVPN-MPLS in >your desire to see if EVPN will work over SR? > >I could be way off. > >-Aaron Hi Aaron, SR is allocating and distributing transport labels, not service labels (well, SIDs actually!). For example, with a typical L3 VPN, SR/LDP/RSVP/PCEP distributes the transport labels amongst your PEs and BGP distributes and service labels amongst them. EVPN uses BGP for signalling too. EVPN can use VXLAN or MPLS for the forwarding plane. This means that when using MPLS for the forwarding plane the EVPN service labels are advertised in BGP, not SR/LDP/RSVP, like an L3 VPN. So someone using "SR+EVPN" means SR for transport labels and BGP for the EVPN labels. Cheers, James. ___ 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] segment routing/evpn on ASR920
Ummm, that too. LOL -Aaron -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of James Bensley Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 9:05 AM To: Tom Ammon; Cisco-nsp List Subject: Re: [c-nsp] segment routing/evpn on ASR920 On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 02:36, Tom Ammon wrote: > > Has anybody tried running segment routing on ASR920? If so, did you run in > to any caveats? What about EVPN over segment routing on that platform? The > SR configuration guide for this platform lists segment routing, but doesn't > call out EVPN specifically - it only lists VPLS and L2VPN. > > Tom Hi Tom, Last I spoke to the ASR920 BU (Q4 last year) EVPN was still a roadmap feature and SR was only just being released so I assume it's bug central at this point in time. Cheers, James. ___ 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] segment routing/evpn on ASR920
I read that SR/SPRING is an alternative to LDP or RSVP... seems that SR/SPRING is a label distribution protocol. Meaning, in my mind, it's a way to learn labels...mpls labels I guess. If so, would we refer to EVPN as EVPN-SR? If so, would it follow that a non-sr network, one that has employed ldp for label learning, with evpn, would be referred to as EVPN-LDP ? I'm not thinking so. Further, I recall reading that EVPN is Control Plane, and has a few different options for Fwd'ing plane... EVPN-VXLAN EVPN-PBB EVPN-MPLS ...perhaps others... Tom, I wonder if we/you should look for ASR920 docs/support for EVPN-MPLS in your desire to see if EVPN will work over SR? I could be way off. -Aaron ___ 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] segment routing/evpn on ASR920
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 02:36, Tom Ammon wrote: > > Has anybody tried running segment routing on ASR920? If so, did you run in > to any caveats? What about EVPN over segment routing on that platform? The > SR configuration guide for this platform lists segment routing, but doesn't > call out EVPN specifically - it only lists VPLS and L2VPN. > > Tom Hi Tom, Last I spoke to the ASR920 BU (Q4 last year) EVPN was still a roadmap feature and SR was only just being released so I assume it's bug central at this point in time. Cheers, James. ___ 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] Cisco 4k Performance and Boost Licensing
Rick, My impression from reading the documentation has been that the Boost license can be activated independently of the Performance license. Maybe someone who's actually implemented it can confirm! ;) Thanks, Adam -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp On Behalf Of Richard Clayton Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 7:12 AM To: Cisco NSPs Subject: [c-nsp] Cisco 4k Performance and Boost Licensing Hi Guys Quick question regarding the above. Can I activate a boost license independent of a performance license or do I need to activate the performance license and then the boost license? I was hoping I could just activate the boost license on a 4451 to give me 4Gb, rather than activate the performance license first. So 1GB > 4GB rather than 1GB > 2Gb > 4Gb. Thanks Rick ___ 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] Cisco 4k Performance and Boost Licensing
Hi Guys Quick question regarding the above. Can I activate a boost license independent of a performance license or do I need to activate the performance license and then the boost license? I was hoping I could just activate the boost license on a 4451 to give me 4Gb, rather than activate the performance license first. So 1GB > 4GB rather than 1GB > 2Gb > 4Gb. Thanks Rick ___ 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/
