Re: [c-nsp] CSRv & VXLAN

[Luis Anzola]

Find below a very handy guide for the CSR1Kv and OTV:

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/solutions/Hybrid_Cloud/DRaaS/CSR/CSR/CSR5.html



On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Mohammad Khalil <eng_m...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi
> I have simulated this on gns3
> http://eng-mssk.blogspot.com/2015/09/otv-example.html?m=1
>
> It might give you a hint
>
> BR,
> Mohammad
>
>
> Sent from Samsung Mobile
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Steve Mikulasik <steve.mikula...@civeo.com>
> Date:24/09/2015 20:45 (GMT+02:00)
> To: Luis Anzola <anzo...@gmail.com>
> Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] CSRv & VXLAN
>
> Yeah after some further reading I think you are right. I'll extend the
> question to include OTV on the CSRv platform. Any experiences would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Luis Anzola [mailto:anzo...@gmail.com <anzo...@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 11:22 AM
> To: Steve Mikulasik <steve.mikula...@civeo.com>
> Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] CSRv & VXLAN
>
> I would look at OTV instead. It's a technology developed specifically for
> DCI implementations and brings very important benefits with it.
>
> Luis
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Sep 24, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Steve Mikulasik <steve.mikula...@civeo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Anyone have any experience with VXLAN on the CSRv? I need to span L2
> traffic across hosted datacetners (can't use a physical device unless it
> installs on x86 hardware) and was wondering if this is the way to go on
> this platform.
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] CSRv & VXLAN

[Luis Anzola]

I would look at OTV instead. It's a technology developed specifically for DCI 
implementations and brings very important benefits with it.

Luis 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 24, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Steve Mikulasik  
> wrote:
> 
> Anyone have any experience with VXLAN on the CSRv? I need to span L2 traffic 
> across hosted datacetners (can't use a physical device unless it installs on 
> x86 hardware) and was wondering if this is the way to go on this platform.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Data Center Core Switches

[Luis anzola]

Sent from my iPad

 On Nov 30, 2013, at 3:19 PM, CiscoNSP List cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
 
 Looks very similar to this RFP - 
 http://www.gju.edu.jo/admin/u1files/GJU%20RFP.pdf
 
 
 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 19:45:57 +0300
 From: madu...@gmail.com
 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
 Subject: [c-nsp] Data Center Core Switches
 
 Dear Experts,
 
 I am in the process to acquire and implement network infrastructure
 solution by upgrading the Data Center Core Switches with a very high
 forwarding rate at least 500 Mpps and above, by using the following
 (TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION)
 
 
 1. Modular Switch with Minimum 8 slots
 
 2. Minimum switching capacity per slot 200Gbps
 
 3. Switching capacity for chassis minimum 5Tbps
 
 4. All major components including but not limited to control plane and
 power supply should be redundant where failure in one component will not
 cause any
 failure.
 
 5. The switch must support virtualization where 2 switches can act as one
 switch eliminating need for spanning tree.
 
 6. Energy saving (power consumption to be provided)
 
 7. Supports for the following:
 a. VRRP
 b. NSR: Non-Stop Routing and Non-Stop Forwarding.
 c. Stateful or Graceful Switchover. Or equivalent.
 d. BFD bidirectional Forwarding Detection
 e. Hot Swappable modules.
 
 8. The vendor should provide all licenses to support IPv4 and IPv6 full
 features.
 
 9. Non-blocking, 1 and 10GE design
 
 10. Support at least 500 Mpps
 
 11. 10GE wire speed to provide adequate support for future collaboration
 applications (video, voice and high bandwidth apps)
 
 12. Future support of 40 and 100 GE
 
 13. The Switch should support, but not be limited to the following Layer3
 Protocols:
 a. Static IP routing
 b. Routing Information Protocol (RIP) and RIP2
 c. Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
 d. BGP
 
 14. The switch must support IP multicast protocols
 a. IGMP v1, v2, and v3
 b. IGMP Snooping
 c. PIM-SM, PIM DM, PIM-SSM
 
 15. The switch should support the following features at a minimum:
 a. Spanning Tree 802.1D, 802.1s, 802.1w
 b. 802.1X single and multi-supplicant: VLAN and ACL assignment
 c. DHCP Snooping, IP source guard
 d. LLDP, LLDP-MED
 e. 802.3ad
 f. Must support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) in hardware to enable
 VPN services within the campus.
 g. SNMP Support v1,2,3
 
 The above spec could apply to juniper, cisco, hp, xtreme ...etc, any
 recommendation should I add/adjust to my  TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
 
 -mad
 ___
 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] How to CoPP (Control Plane Policing) configuration?

[Luis Anzola]

Hi Folks,

One of the best practices is to configure  your policies in a OPEN fashion with 
no drops, allowing all traffic pointing to the CPU so that you can take 
advantage of the QoS MIBs to monitor and get after a period of time a baseline 
which you can use to create the right policing at the control plane. 

Best regards, 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 13, 2013, at 9:47 PM, PlaWanSai RMUTT CPE IX pws_ad...@thaicpe.com 
wrote:

 Can I use this for determining?
 http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/metro/me3600x_3800x/software/releas
 e/15.2_2_S/configuration/guide/swcopp.html#wp1166449
 Now, I separated to 5 access-lists.
 1. For LDP and BGP.
 2. For telnet, SSH, SNMP, NTP, TACACS, ftp, and TFTP.
 3. For ICMP.
 4. For traffic that fragments.
 5. For All
 I don't know these are enough. And What is a number should be use for police
 each access-list?
 
 Thank you very much.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Mack McBride [mailto:mack.mcbr...@viawest.com] 
 Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 1:22 AM
 To: PlaWanSai RMUTT CPE IX; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
 Subject: RE: [c-nsp] How to CoPP (Control Plane Policing) configuration?
 
 First step is determining what is actually hitting your control plane and
 what the maximum traffic levels for that traffic should be.
 
 For some platforms like the 6500 you have to deal with traffic requiring ARP
 And ICMP responses as well as what should be hitting the cpu for control and
 routing protocols.  There are also spanning-tree packets and other things
 that have to be accounted for.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
 PlaWanSai RMUTT CPE IX
 Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 3:03 AM
 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
 Subject: [c-nsp] How to CoPP (Control Plane Policing) configuration?
 
 Could you please how to CoPP (Control Plane Policing) configuration?
 
 It has a best practice for each model?
 
 Now, I want configuration for ME-3600x.
 
 
 
 Thank you very much.
 
 ___
 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] PWHE vs BVI on Bridge Domain - l2vpn ios xr

[Luis Anzola]

Hi Aaron,

Take a look on the PWHE and BVI interface capabilities in terms of feature set 
(qos, sec, routing, etc) and you will probably find the answer to your 
question, e.g. QoS is not supported on BVI interfaces.

QoS on PWHE Interfaces:
 IPv4 and IPv6 address-families are supported.
Policy maps on both ingress and egress PW-HE. Both ingress and egress support 
policing, marking, and queuing within hardware limitations.
Policies at the port for the transit traffic can be applied simultaneously with 
policies for PWHE interfaces.
Policy is replicated on all PWHE members. This means the rate specified in the 
PWHE policy-map is limited to the lowest rate of all the pin down members. For 
example, if the PW-HE interface has both 1G and 10G pin down members, the rate 
is limited to 1G. if the 10G member has a shaper of 900 mbps, the rate of the 
PWHE interface policy is limited to 900 mbps.
Port shaping policy on the member interface will impact the PWHE traffic 
passing through that port.
Best regards, 

Luis

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 6, 2013, at 5:36 PM, Aaron aar...@gvtc.com wrote:

 From a previous post, I got curious about PWHE since I didn't know what it
 was.
 
 
 
 I looked at someone's config and read a little about it on cisco.com.
 
 
 
 It seems that what I'm reading about PWHE and what I saw in a previous
 config of a previous post, I've used a construct of l2vpn, bridge group,
 bridge domain, neighbors for pw's, and bvi for L3 to accomplish a similar
 function as what someone else used with xconnect groups, p2p xconnects,
 interfacelists, and PW interface for L3
 
 
 
 Why would I use one method over the other?
 
 
 
 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/
___
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] IPv6 Transition - IP/MPLS Backbone

[Luis Anzola]

Hi Guys,

It's important to keep in mind what type of IPv6 service will be transported 
over the MPLS domain, whether it is a Corporate L3VPN Service or an Internet 
Access since there is some overhead on the 6VPE implementation that should be 
considered when carrying all Internet routes, e.g. it's important to understand 
how the memory is used on the routers if you are running a full-bgp table at 
the PEs on a BGP-free Core model, considering the labels and RD.  
- 192bits Address (24 Byte) including the 64 bits route distinguisher (8 Bytes) 
and the 128 bits IPv6 address (16 Bytes) RD:IPv6

Best regards,

Luis

On May 19, 2013, at 4:48 PM, Ahmed Hilmy hilmy...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hello Aaron,
 
 I hope you are doing great.
 I am working on IPv6 deployment.
 i am trying to configure my PE as a dual-stack toward CE, i have already
 establish EBGPv4 session with my customer.both PE end CE are dual-stack
 I have set ipv4 and ipv6 address on the interface( directly connected to CE
 ).
 i enabled ipv6 unicast-routing
 i enabled  mls ipv6 vrf
 I enabled vrf and upgrade to vrf-cli
 
 i have tried with 6PE and 6VPE but i was failed.
 So, here are my questions:
 
 1- if PE and CE are dual-stack, so  i have to use 6VPE, right ? at CE side
 what is the required configuration ?
 2- IOS version is 12.2(33) SRD3 - 7606- SUP720 , is it supported for
 Dual-Stack ?
 3- at PE toward CE, shall i configure address-family ipv6 or vpn ipv6 or
 ipv6 vrf  ? at CE only ipv6 ?
 4- my Topology is like this CE---PE-IGW .Would you please guide
 me in that ..
 =
 At PE:
 ===
 vrf definition IPv6
 rd 6500:1
 !
 address-family ipv4
 route-target export 6500:1
 route-target import 6500:1
 exit-address-family
 !
 address-family ipv6
 route-target export 6500:1
 route-target import 6500:1
 exit-address-family
 =
 interface GigabitEthernet1/18
 description IPv6-test
 vrf forwarding IPv6
 ip address 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.0
 
 ipv6 address 2A03:4700:::0:1/64
 ==
 router bgp 6501
 neighbor 10.10.10.2 remote-as 6500
 neighbor 10.10.10.2 update-source GigabitEthernet1/18
 neighbor 2A03:4700:::0:2 remote-as 6500
 neighbor 2A03:4700:::0:2 update-source GigabitEthernet1/18
 address-family ipv4 vrf IPv6
  no synchronization
  neighbor 10.10.10.2 remote-as 6500
  neighbor 10.10.10.2 activate
 exit-address-family
 !
 address-family ipv6 vrf IPv6
  no synchronization
  neighbor 2A03:4700:::0:2 remote-as 6500
  neighbor 2A03:4700:::0:2 activate
 exit-address-family
 ==
 
 
 
 Thanks
 
 
 On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Aaron aar...@gvtc.com wrote:
 
 It was in my live network, later I removed it for preferring L3VPN vice
 L2VPN…
 
 ** **
 
 I think on the route reflector the thing(s) you need to do is add vpnv6 to
 global bgp and to the neighbor session….neighbor session will bounce when
 you activate another address family to a pre-existing neighbor….it’s quick
 as I recall, loose a couple pings and that’s it
 
 ** **
 
 Aaron
 
 ** **
 
 *From:* Ahmed Hilmy [mailto:hilmy...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 1:47 PM
 *To:* Aaron
 *Cc:* Harold 'Buz' Dale; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net; aaron.go...@gvtc.net
 
 *Subject:* Re: [c-nsp] IPv6 Transition - IP/MPLS Backbone
 
 ** **
 
 Hello Aaron,
 
 ** **
 
 That is great and so happy to hear that, is it real deployment at your
 live network ?
 
 MP-BGP between PE- Route Reflector, shall i modify it to allow IPv6 packet
 to carry ? or only at PE to work as dual stack ?
 
 ** **
 
 ** **
 
 ** **
 
 On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Aaron aar...@gvtc.com wrote:
 
 
 Sounds like a good use for 6VPE...as I understand it, I've had to do the
 following in my network to get 6vpe working...
 
 - enable local vrf ipv6 data structure which may include you upgrading the
 vrf cli to the vrf definition to support ipv6
 - enable/activate vpnv6 neighbors within the MP-iBGP core...PE bgp
 neighbors
 or PE to Route Refelctor(s)
 - enable the ipv6 vrf within bgp
 - enable the pe-ce routing to be ipv6 capable
 - enable the ipv6 protocol stack in the interfaces facing CE
 
 ...i had to do nothing ipv6-related to my mpls/igp core routing
 environment.
 Nothing.  I think that's nice thing about 6vpe is that providers don't have
 to do anything to the core in order to enable ipv6 over pre-existing ipv4
 (vpvn4) mpls l3vpn's...
 
 When you are done, a traceroute from a client transiting the 6vpe mpls
 l3vpn
 will look like this... notice hops 2 and 3i think they are ipv6
 compatible ipv6 addresses (but unsure about what they are called)...anyway,
 it shows the loopback router id of the mpls transit hop via the 6vpe (the
 mpls l3vpn that is ipv6 enabled)
 
 C:\tracert -d www.cisco.com
 
 Tracing route to e144.dscb.akamaiedge.net [2600:1404:8:1:9200::90]
 over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  11 ms1 ms1 ms  

Re: [c-nsp] Metro Ethernet nightmares (L2PT, PBB-VPLS, Load Balancing, EVPN)

[Luis Anzola]

The FAT PW concept works pretty good on the 7600 based on my experience. It 
basically add a dummy label on a per flow basis to improve the load balancing 
across the MPLS domain by influencing the hash decision. 

Best regards,

Luis Anzola

Sent from my iPhone

On May 8, 2013, at 5:17 AM, Holger L ci...@entrap.de wrote:

 On Wed, May 8, 2013 04:19, Mattias Gyllenvarg wrote:
 EVPN is basiclly in beta and still a pipe dream on any realworld network
 as
 far as I can see it.
 
 Completely transparent, we react to nothing the customers sends above
 ethernet switcing.
 
 Yeah, thats all we need :)
 
 Any loadbalancing is done in IGP or in a few cases MPLS-TE manipulating
 IGP.
 I have a feeling that your failing too separate the layers here. And also
 perhaps, you may be fixing problems that you dont have yet.
 
 May be, well, lets see, I have two MPLS-TE Tunnels between the PEs and
 they are both in the routing table:
 
 Routing entry for 10.47.255.40/32
  Known via ospf 1, distance 110, metric 11, type intra area
  Last update from 10.47.255.40 on Tunnel10401, 00:37:05 ago
  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
10.47.255.40, from 10.47.255.40, 00:37:05 ago, via Tunnel10401
  Route metric is 11, traffic share count is 1
  * 10.47.255.40, from 10.47.255.40, 00:37:05 ago, via Tunnel10402
  Route metric is 11, traffic share count is 1
 
 L3 load balancing should work fine, but what's about L2 VCs to
 10.47.255.40 passing these MPLS-TE tunnels? L2 VC 9 between R1 and R4 is
 only associated to one Tunnel, in our case Tu10401:
 
 Local interface: VFI macinmac vfi up
  Interworking type is Ethernet
  Destination address: 10.47.255.40, VC ID: 9, VC status: up
Output interface: Tu10401, imposed label stack {0 43}
Preferred path: not configured
Default path: active
Next hop: point2point
  Create time: 00:41:46, last status change time: 00:09:29
Last label FSM state change time: 00:09:29
  Signaling protocol: LDP, peer 10.47.255.40:0 up
Targeted Hello: 10.47.255.10(LDP Id) - 10.47.255.40, LDP is UP
Status TLV support (local/remote)   : enabled/supported
  LDP route watch   : enabled
  Label/status state machine: established, LruRru
  Last local dataplane   status rcvd: No fault
  Last BFD dataplane status rcvd: Not sent
  Last BFD peer monitor  status rcvd: No fault
  Last local AC  circuit status rcvd: No fault
  Last local AC  circuit status sent: No fault
  Last local PW i/f circ status rcvd: No fault
  Last local LDP TLV status sent: No fault
  Last remote LDP TLVstatus rcvd: No fault
  Last remote LDP ADJstatus rcvd: No fault
MPLS VC labels: local 45, remote 43
Group ID: local 0, remote 0
MTU: local 1500, remote 1500
Remote interface description:
  Sequencing: receive disabled, send disabled
  Control Word: On (configured: autosense)
  SSO Descriptor: 10.47.255.40/9, local label: 45
  Dataplane:
SSM segment/switch IDs: 73770/20493 (used), PWID: 3
  VC statistics:
transit packet totals: receive 536, send 1089
transit byte totals:   receive 79824, send 128772
transit packet drops:  receive 0, seq error 0, send 0
 
 L2 VC 9 is always associated to only one MPLS-TE tunnel, thus I guess load
 balancing may be done by label on both tunnels. Or not at all?
 Since we have only one label for VC 9 between R1 and R4 load balancing
 will not happen for traffic in VC 9. Correct?
 
 And because its PBB and all customers 802.1ah traffic is forwarded in a
 single bridge-domain (9 in our case), there will be no other VC than VC 9.
 So we just don't have any load balancing.
 
 ethernet mac-tunnel virtual 1
 bridge-domain 9
 service instance 101 ethernet
  description customer-A
  encapsulation dot1ah isid 101
  bridge-domain 1101 c-mac
 !
 ...
 
 Of course we could get rid of PBB and would have a different VCs for every
 customer. But then we would lose transparency since PBB is completely
 transparent for customers traffic and L2PT is not at all.
 
 Yesterday I stumbled across A-VPLS Flow Label based laod balancing. Has
 anyone experience with this and how may I use it on Cisco 7600?
 
 We are aware of the semi-unfixable issues of AoMPLS clouds and are
 awaiting EVPN too fix it as there is no real sollution to fix all this.
 Except IP-VPN :)
 
 Best regards,
 Holger
 
 
 ___
 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] BVIs and finding MAC addresses in IOS XR

[Luis Anzola]

Hi John,

Please, try with:

sh l2vpn forwarding bridge mac-address location /location/

Best regards,

Luis Anzola

On 06/06/2012 13:39, John Neiberger wrote:

I've run into a problem that I can't figure out. We have a BVI
configured with several ports in the bridge domain.If I know the MAC
address of a device, how do I find which layer two port it is
connected to? In IOS I would simply do 'show mac-address-table and
look for it. I can find no similar command in XR. The output of show
arp isn't helpful because it just lists the BVI as the interface. I
need to know the specific interface that has learned that MAC address.

Any idea how to do that in XR?
___
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] L3VPN works, but not default route

[Luis Anzola]

Hi,

You need to configure the following command in order to propagate the 
default route to the remote PEs:


router bgp ASN
 !
 address-family ipv4 vrf vrf-name
*  default-information originate*

Regards.

On 17/04/2012 19:06, aar...@gvtc.com wrote:

I'm not able to send the default route across a mpls L3VPN

On a ce router I'm doing defaul info-orig and a directly connected PE rcvs it 
in it's vrf specific rib

So, again, i see the default route learned via ospf on ce-pe advertisements in 
the pe vrf on one side of the cloudthen i redis ospf into mp-ibgp and i see 
all of my ospf routes (about 490 routes total) advertised over the mpls core to 
the other pe on the other side of the cloud  the only route that doesn't 
make it over is 0/0

Any ideas?

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/


___
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] L3VPN works, but not default route

[Luis Anzola]

Sorry, I just realized you are running IOS XR.

Please, try configuring this:

router bgp ASN
 vrf vrf-name
  default-information originate

Regards.

On 18/04/2012 2:02, Peter Rathlev wrote:

On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 22:25 -0500, Aaron wrote:

Pe closest to ce

RP/0/RSP0/CPU0: 9k#show bgp vpnv4 unicast vrf one 0.0.0.0
Tue Apr 17 21:18:36.588 CST
% Network not in table

Then it will of course explain why the remote end doesn't see the route.
I must admit that I have never tried with a default originated from an
OSPF process and redidstributed into BGP, only the other way.

Would it help to include the XR equivalent of network 0.0.0.0 or
default-information originate under the ipv4 vrf one address family?

Otherwise it's maybe an XR specific thing as Jason points out.



___
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] ASR9000v and distance

[Luis Anzola]

The ASR9K nV technology will simplify your NGN Carrier Ethernet 
Architecture by reducing the complexity of constantly growing L2/L3 
Access networks used for MPLS L2/L3 VPN Services Aggregation.


On 09/04/2012 15:07, Christian Kratzer wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:

nV is like being able to take a line card out of the ASR 9000 and 
move it to a remote location. You get full-featured ports (incl. L2, 
L3, HQoS, MPLS, VPLS etc.), all managed like any other port on the 
router, just located at a remote site


Sure, you could transport services in L2 to a remote switch, but 
that's not really the same thing. I think of this as an alternative 
to buying a separate router to place on the remote site.


yes it's all looking really hot.

And no, nV is not (currently) all that one could hope for, like 
redundant uplinks are missing. I'm sure that will improve over time. 
(At least, that's what marketecture like this says: 
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns524/ns562/ns592/asr_nv_100611.pdf)


yes that's the one paper all googling ends up at.

I do not care too much about having to manage one or multiple chassis.

What I find interesting though is getting rid of hsrp, vrrp, glbp and 
all other next hop redundancy shims while having redundant uplinks to 
multiple chassis. Sort of like multichassis port-channels in Vss.


I am not sure yet what can of worms this opens though as I am still 
lacking understanding of new IOS XR concepts.


Seems we do not have to worry about vlan id signifance so much as IOS 
XR just pushes and pops vlan ids from subinterfaces.


Lets just hope this all comes together and we will find a way to 
transition smoothly ;)


Greetings
Christian







-A

Sent from my tablet; excuse brevity

On 07/04/2012, at 16.50, Aled Morris al...@qix.co.uk wrote:

The ASR9000v satellite doesn't sound like much of an improvement 
over simply trunking to a conventional L2 switch and having each 
switchport presented as a separate VLAN to the router for L3 
processing.


The ability to manage it all with one instance of IOS might be 
simpler but using discrete L2 switches seems to have a lot more 
flexibility.


What am I missing?

Aled

On 7 April 2012 12:30, Asbjorn Hojmark li...@hojmark.org wrote:
1) Not currently
2) Yes
3) There is no local switching

-A

Sent from my tablet; excuse brevity

On 07/04/2012, at 13.59, Robert Hass robh...@gmail.com wrote:


Hi
I have three questions regarding ASR9000v deployments:

1) Can I connect one ASR9000v to two ASR9010 (to have redundancy). If
yes are these ASR9010 have to be direct interconnected ?
2) Can ASR9000v be eg. 200-300KM away from ASR9010 (10GE over DWDM).
3) Are ASR9000v providing local switching between GE ports or all
traffic is going to upper layer (ASR9010) and going back to ASR9000v ?

Rob

___
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/

[c-nsp] Interoperability issue between ME-3800X and Huawei OSN 6800 (1000BaseLX)

[Luis Anzola]

Hi Guys,

Does anyone have experienced problems interconnecting Cisco Router with 
DWDM Huawei equipments through 1000BaseLX?  I am currently trying to 
connect a ME-3800X using the SFP+ Multi-rate port (Ten0/1) with a 
GLC-LH-SM versus Huawei OSN 6800 DWDM and I am experiencing problem 
bringing the b2b interface Up. I have tried turning on and off the 
Auto-Negotiation on the  Cisco Router without success. Curiously,  when 
I change the link to a 1GigaEth port (Gi0/1) in the ME-3800X the link 
goes UP and end2end connectivity is established. I was wondering whether 
some change have to be done on the DWDM equipment in order to achieve 
the negotiation with the SFP+ port.


Thanks in advance for any comment you may suggest.

Regards.
___
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] FW: Cisco ME3800X/ME3600X - Any experiences worth sharing?

[Luis Anzola]

Does the ME3800X support Ingress/Egress Policing on a SVI? If not, Which is
the best way to apply this feature on the box?

Could anyone explain how egress policing is supported?

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/