Re: [c-nsp] A9K 40G 100G
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Mark Newton wrote: On Sep 21, 2013, at 1:41 AM, Mohacsi Janos moha...@niif.hu wrote: 1xRSP-4G - 93-95 Gbps/slot FDX 2xRSP-4G - 186-190 Gbps/slot FDX On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Jason Lixfeld wrote: I seem to remember reading something at some point saying if with an RSP4/8, two are required and both are required to run active/active. The ASR9K platform in case of redundant RSP, it is always runnning in active/active. Serious question: What happens to capacity when it's 2xRSP-4G running in active/failed? As stated: 1xRSP-4G - 93-95 Gbps/slot FDX 2xRSP-4G - 186-190 Gbps/slot FDX We tested it during our 100GE test. The 100G card can handle only 93-95 Gbps traffic, Regards, Janos Mohacsi ___ 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] A9K 40G 100G
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Jason Lixfeld wrote: I'm wondering if anyone knows off the top of their head what the limitations are in terms of 40/100G LC support with RSP4. 1xRSP-4G - 93-95 Gbps/slot FDX 2xRSP-4G - 186-190 Gbps/slot FDX I seem to remember reading something at some point saying if with an RSP4/8, two are required and both are required to run active/active. The ASR9K platform in case of redundant RSP, it is always runnning in active/active. Whereas with an RSP440, which has more fabric capacity, wouldn't require a second fabric active at the same time. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone ___ 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] A9K 40G 100G
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Phil Bedard wrote: The 9010 with the non-RSP440 is about 184G/slot using both fabrics.. I am not entirely sure the 100G cards work without the 440... It does, however in single RSP-4G you are limited 93-95Gbps. No problem with redundant RSP-4G. Regards, Janos Mohacsi Phil From: Jason Lixfeld Sent: 9/19/2013 23:15 To: cisco-nsp NSP Subject: [c-nsp] A9K 40G 100G I'm wondering if anyone knows off the top of their head what the limitations are in terms of 40/100G LC support with RSP4. I seem to remember reading something at some point saying if with an RSP4/8, two are required and both are required to run active/active. Whereas with an RSP440, which has more fabric capacity, wouldn't require a second fabric active at the same time. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone ___ 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] ipodwdm - asr 9000
Hi Aaron, Can you try configuring the DWDM channel with frequency, instead of channel. We run into a similar problem a while ago. Solution was to configure with frequency. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi Head of HBONE+ project Network Engineer, Director Network and Multimedia NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Co-chair of Hungarian IPv6 Forum Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, Aaron wrote: Running ios xr 4.1.2 -Original Message- From: Pshem Kowalczyk [mailto:pshe...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 3:58 PM To: Aaron Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ipodwdm - asr 9000 If the filters only allow channel 35 that's what the optics should be tuned to. I'm not sure how to verify that, since clearly you set the channel and yet the show commands do not confirm that. All that comes to mind is to confirm the actual frequencies of those channels on the DWDM filters (we've encountered some incompatibilities with Ericsson OTN equipment - their bands didn't always exactly aligned with ITU channels). What software version are you running on those ASR9k? kind regards Pshem On 3 April 2013 09:50, Aaron aar...@gvtc.com wrote: I just checked this with my collegue... The link from 9k to 9k passes through dwdm filters which filter on channel 35 We pad that link and get around -12 to -15 What do you think about all this ? Aaron -Original Message- From: Pshem Kowalczyk [mailto:pshe...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 3:16 PM To: Aaron Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ipodwdm - asr 9000 Hi, I'm not sure if this is relevant, but channel 53 is 194.55THz and 1540.95nm (see here: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/modules/ps5455/data_sheet_78-458530.html). 193 THz is channel 22 and 1549.315nm is in fact channel 32. Output on both routers shows the same values, so perhaps they do tune the optics the same way. Is this a direct fibre, or does it go through some other equipment? Also - what's the light budget of the link? kind regards Pshem On 3 April 2013 07:24, Aaron aar...@gvtc.com wrote: Opps, I added those dots ... It looks like this... 9k-1 - Optics Status Optics Type: 10G-TUNABLE-by-CHANNEL, 10G-TUNABLE-by-WAVELENGTH, 9k-2 - Optics Status Optics Type: 10G-TUNABLE-by-CHANNEL, -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 1:12 PM To: 'Mikael Abrahamsson' Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ipodwdm - asr 9000 Interesting, look what I just saw while comparing is this significant? 9k-1... Optics Status Optics Type: 10G-TUNABLE-by-CHANNEL, 10G-TUNABLE-by-WAVELENGTH, ... 9k-2... Optics Status Optics Type: 10G-TUNABLE-by-CHANNEL, ... -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:57 PM To: 'Mikael Abrahamsson' Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ipodwdm - asr 9000 RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:9k-1#show controller dwdm 0/0/0/0 Tue Apr 2 12:57:25.697 CDT Port dwdm0/0/0/0 Controller State: up Transport Admin State: In Service Loopback: None G709 Status G709 Disabled Connectivity Info Network Port ID: 0/0/0/0 Network Connection ID: 0/0/0/0 Optics Status Optics Type: 10G-TUNABLE-by-CHANNEL, 10G-TUNABLE-by-WAVELENGTH, Wavelength Info: C-Band, MSA ITU Channel=53, Frequency=193.00THz, Wavelength=1549.315nm TX Power = 0.47 dBm RX Power = -16.81 dBm TDC Info TDC Not Supported on the Plim Network SRLG values: Not Configured RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:9k-1# * * * RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:9k-2#show controller dwdm 0/1/0/1 Tue Apr 2 12:55:29.783 CDT Port dwdm0/1/0/1 Controller State: up Transport Admin State: In Service Loopback: None G709 Status G709 Disabled Connectivity Info Network Port ID: 0/1/0/1 Network Connection ID: 0/1/0/1 Optics Status Optics Type: 10G-TUNABLE-by-CHANNEL, Wavelength Info: C-Band, MSA ITU Channel=53, Frequency=193.00THz, Wavelength=1549.315nm TX Power = 0.41 dBm RX Power = -16.02 dBm TDC Info TDC Not Supported on the Plim Network SRLG values: Not Configured RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:9k-2# -Original Message- From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 11:38 AM To: Aaron Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ipodwdm - asr 9000 On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, Aaron wrote: Any assistance is appreciated show controller dwdm 0/0/0/0 both ends. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ cisco-nsp mailing
Re: [c-nsp] IPv6 best practices
Hi, Have a look at 6deploy training material about deployment considerations e.g.: http://www.6deploy.org/workshops2/20110629_skopje_macedonia/17.IPv6_deployment%20consideration_v0_9_skopje.pdf Janos Mohacsi Head of HBONE+ project Network Engineer, Director Network and Multimedia NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Co-chair of Hungarian IPv6 Forum Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Adam Greene wrote: Charles, You may have seen this, but if not: http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2013-January/055248.html. Deals with enterprise deployments but many of the contributions seem to apply equally well to a service provider environment. Thanks, Adam On 2/7/2013 3:41 AM, Charles Sprickman wrote: All, Perhaps a bit OT here, but we've got our v6 allocation from ARIN and I've been doing a fair amount of deployment elsewhere (in a colo facility where we don't have any networking gear beyond L2 switches). I've found plenty of lively discussion (if not consensus) on how to allocate subnets, some ideas on numbering, and a good deal of application-layer BCPs, but I'm simply not finding very much info coming out of the service provider community. Topics I'm interested in are: IPv6 BGP best practices/gotchas Security considerations (particularly WRT network gear) Preferred interior routing protocols An overview of where vendors (in this case, Cisco) fall short + workarounds As definitive a set of guidelines as is possible at this (early?) point regarding subnet sizes for business customers, residential customers, PoPs I know folks like CYMRU (https://www.team-cymru.org/) have some excellent security BCPs, but nothing IPv6 specific. Many of the IPv6-centric information sites seem to mainly deal with end-user issues and application-specific information. Am I missing a particularly solid nsp IPv6 resource? Thanks, Charles ___ 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] 10/100/1000 copper SFP in ASR9k / autoneg
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Phil Mayers wrote: This is just curiosity; it's not even strictly our problem. We host a POP (physical space, power cooling, a bit of telco liason) for our upstream, who have an ASR9k on site that we and a lot of other people connect into. In providing assistance for a couple of other sites connected to that same router, it's been mentioned that the tri-rate copper SFPs don't support autoneg? Correct. Their current generation of line-cards does not support 10/100/1000 copper SFP auto-negotiation. It is rather painful sometimes: dumb non-configurable auto-nego switch on the other side sometimes configured to 100 Mbps half-duplex after restart. Then complain from the users because of the packet drops... .. Does anyone have the faintest idea what Cisco are playing at here? I'm amazed and astonished that a product released this millenium won't support autoneg. Madness! I've got to know - surely there must be a good reason? According to Cisco - they selected a cheaper chip - without auto-negotiation. Janos Mohacsi Head of HBONE+ project Network Engineer, Deputy Director of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 Baffled, Phil ___ 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] C7600 vs. ASR 9000
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Mack McBride wrote: The 9K uses a crossbar fabric evolved from the 6500/7600 (not the same as the GSR - CRS evolved fabric) The port interface chips are the same. The NPU chip is the same as used in the ES cards. Primary difference is in the way the FIB is run on the 9K vs DFC on the 7600. Basically they 9K uses the NPU to do more than the 7600 so it is in a lot of ways more efficient but it is also more 'software' based (not necessarily a bad thing as it is more flexible). Being evolved from the 7600 should give users confidence that it is solid. That is a good thing. But it isn't so revolutionary that the 7600 is completely obsolete. After discounts the 9K still cost more but has a longer life expectancy. After some calculation: AS9006 with 6-8 10 GE and 20 GE is slightly cheaper on list prices than C7606 with similar amount of ports with ES+ cards. The only problem I see at the moment is the software upgrade on ASR9K IOS-XR. Most of the time one swoftware upgrade requires two reboot (each ~ 10 minutes). In C7600/C6500 we could do software upgrade most of the time with RP switchover under 2 minutes. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi Mack -Original Message- From: Jason Lixfeld [mailto:ja...@lixfeld.ca] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 10:27 PM To: Mack McBride Cc: mti...@globaltransit.net; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] C7600 vs. ASR 9000 On 2011-10-03, at 11:37 PM, Mack McBride wrote: The 7600 and ASR9000 use a lot of similar hardware (Cisco didn't reinvent the wheel they just added rims). Where? The ASR line cards resemble the ES series on the 7600. Where? If one is using an ES port on a 7600, I'd assume one is likely using EVCs on said port. The ES ports on the 7600s do not support SPAN on a physical interface that is configured with EVCs. The ASR9k thankfully supports this extremely basic feature. The 7600 ES port's lack of SPAN on an EVC would lead me to believe that the ASIC controlling the ES is very different than the ASIC controlling the ASR linecards. ___ 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] 7600 SXF and IPv6
On Tue, 3 May 2011, vince anton wrote: Hi everyone We currently run SFX14 on 7600 SUP720-3BXL with line cards having DFCs Box has been stable doing L2 aggreagation and some L3 SVI stuff OSPF, BGP (not full feed). All this for v4 only I would now like to turn on v6 on this box, having been reasonably sucesfull with v6 on 7206s in my network, mainly same stuff, OSPFv3 and dual stacking SVIs Anyone has experiemces to share or known v6 issues with SXF (or v4 issues with v6 enabled for that matter), or should I be looking at SRC/SRD/SRE for 7600 ? Apart from the caveats listed by others. I think there is a serious problem there: no IPSEC implementation for OSPFv3 authentication on 6500/7600 platform. Probably because of the weak MIPS CPU. Regards, Janos Mohacsi Thanks, anton ___ 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 internal deployment
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011, Tom Mayer wrote: Hi, I am thinking about my deployment strategy for a relatively small v6 network. Current Situation: Several racks of dedicated servers. 240 servers per vlan (/24 v4 per vlan) sharing their gateway, isolated from each other via pvlan (+proxyarp) feature. Rest of addresses from /24 are used for services (3 vrrp routers + 1 virtual default gateway). If a server needs uncommonly more than one address, it gets a /30 or /29 routed to his main address. You can use pvlan with IPv6, but not the proxyarp. AFAIK similar proxy ND is not implemented. In IPv6 I would not route to main address but assign as much as address to the host as needed. I am planning to assign a /64 v6 to each server. I think it is not viable to map every /64 with it?s default gateway on the router. You can assign longer prefixes also to servers inside a single /64 if you don't mind static configuration - which is advisable for server anyway (you don't want to change IP addresses. in case of network card replacement). You can rely on finding the default gateways with SLAAC RA feature. Is there a way to simply transfer the (I think simple, address conserving and secure) v4 strategy to v6? Now we have not a simple address per server, but a subnet. We are using the following allocation strategy for the virtual server environment: in last 64 bit: 0080:vvww:yyzz: where vv.ww.yy.zz is the IPv4 address of the host. is a sub-allocation for IPv6 address from 0- What about assigning a link locale address to each server and routing its /64 to this? e.g.: fe80::1 default gw (virtual vrrp) fe80::2-f1 servers fe80::fd vrrp1 fe80::fe vrrp2 fe80::ff vrrp3 Don't use link local addresses, they are only reachable on the same link. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi ___ 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] Opinions about the next 6500/7600
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Mack McBride wrote: The cost per gigabit is not at parity yet for low gigabit rates. If you are maxing out a 7600 then a ASR 9K is definitely the next step. The ASR 9K seems to be very mature for its age. We deployed ASR9K network recently. We had to open 14 TAC case in two months installation cycle. Curiously the ASR 1K which is a newer platform was very well conceived and has been relatively bug free. I would not say so: We have ben using ASR1K for about 2 years now. We had lots of headache last year. TAC case opened and remained open for 4-5 months: sudden drop of traffic (sometimes after few minutes uptime, sometimes days of uptime) on certain broadband conections. TAC did not have clue where is the problem. Then bug suddenly disappeard without knowing what caused the problem. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi ___ 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] 7600 updates
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, MKS wrote: 100G can be expected in 2011 (or early 2012) for ASR9K and Nexus 7000. AFAIK you cannot expect 40G for 7600. Are there any (public) reasons given for not offering 40G for 7600? My assumption is the following: - sup720/rsp720 series backplane connectivity capacity is 40Gbps - there is no known plan from Cisco to have bigger capacity supervisor for 76xx. - Probably not economical to develop 1 port 40GE card - If you need router like capabilities Cisco pushes you to go for ASR9K - Comparing pricewise 76xx with ES cards and ASR9K with low queue cards there is not much difference. Best Regards, Janos ___ 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] 7600 updates
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Robert Hass wrote: On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Mohacsi Janos moha...@niif.hu wrote: - sup720/rsp720 series backplane connectivity capacity is 40Gbps Same like Sup-2T new RSP-2T could do it. Wondering if new Sup-2T will be MIPS or PPC. Probably PPC and IOS XE same like Sup7 for 4500. This means Sup-2T can be the same for both - 6500 and 7600 series with exception regarding IOS features - SR release (7600) versus SX release (6500). AFAIK SUP-2T is Cat6k only. Best Regards, Janos ___ 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] 7600 updates
On Wed, 5 Jan 2011, MKS wrote: Hi list It's been some time since we have received a 7600 update, but I was checking the cisco site any found out the the only platform supporting anything bigger than 10gig interfaces is the CRS (40G pos and 100G ethernet) (on a side note, is the 100G orderable now?) Does anyone know if/when 40/100 is coming to the ASR9000 or if 40G is coming to the 7600? Hi, 40G can be expected in 2011 (or early 2012) for ASR9K, Nexus 7000/5000, Cat 6500. 100G can be expected in 2011 (or early 2012) for ASR9K and Nexus 7000. AFAIK you cannot expect 40G for 7600. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi ___ 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] 7600 updates
On Wed, 5 Jan 2011, MKS wrote: Does anyone know if/when 40/100 is coming to the ASR9000 or if 40G is coming to the 7600? Hi, 40G can be expected in 2011 (or early 2012) for ASR9K, Nexus 7000/5000, Cat 6500. I assume you are talking about 40G Ethernet? Yes 40GE. 100G can be expected in 2011 (or early 2012) for ASR9K and Nexus 7000. AFAIK you cannot expect 40G for 7600. ___ 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] Tool To Backup Configurations
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011, Righa Shake wrote: Hi, Am looking for a tool that i can use to backup Cisco configurations with ease. The tool could be opensource or commercial. Use rancid: http://www.shrubbery.net/rancid/ Regards, Righa Shake ___ 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] ASR 9k and 100GE
Hi Tim, On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, tim wrote: Hi list, Short question about the ASR 9006/9010: Do I need to replace the switch fabric (or something else - like with the GSR/12000 series when upgrading to 12400/12800) when 100GE is available? Or do I just buy a new 100GE Linecard and put it into the chassis? (We found some money in the budget for this year and are thinking of buying some ASR 9k with 10GE Linecards and replacing (one-by-one) some Cisco 12410. Later these ASR 9k should carry 100GE links. So if I need to make bigger upgrades to the ASR 9k to make them 100GE capable, it is probably not profitable.) Yes and no. Depends on what you want to achieve... According to out local Cisco representatives the forwarding capacity of the current ASR9K RSP card is around 92 Gbps full-duplex. If you install a secondary RSP then the capacity is increasing to about 184 Gbps since the 2 RSP is working in active-active mode - both RSP is participating in the forwarding. If you don't have single big 100Gbps flow then probably you can use the full capacity of the 100GE card in a 2 RSP configuration, and handle most of the traffic in 1 RSP configuration (Note: if the traffic volume is above 60-70% of the interface capacity, you can experience some traffic drops due to a bursty nature of the traffic). However you should known what kind of 100GE card will release Cisco - single or 2x100GE Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi Head of HBONE+ project Network Engineer, Deputy Director of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 Thanks, -tim ___ 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] Cisco IPv6 doubt
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Jeferson Guardia wrote: Hi Group, A doubt/curiosity, what happens in a router that you are setting up IGP's , and you dont hardcode the router-id, thus it will look for an IPv4 address to use as a router-id, but what if I dont have any IPv4 address configured? Where will it come from? none. It will complain that wont work without router-id. You have to configure. Router-id is router-id, not IPv4 address though. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi ___ 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] Older gear and IPv6
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Charles Mills wrote: Doing some research for an IPv6 migration plan. It is almost inevitable that it will run on older switch gear at some point for the sites I'm being tasked with evaluating. Older Layer 3 gear being what it is I'm already aware does everything in software if it supports it at all. What about older layer 2 gear? Are there any issues there or is a packet just a packet regardless of the address format? I can't think of anything to worry about here unless there are MTU issues. Layer 2 should not be a problem. There should be no MTU size issues IPv6 (except that the sender node expecting working path-mtu-discovery along the path). We had a strange layer2? problem at broadband environment. PPP should have been transparent, but BRAS dropped IPv6 packets since it was unknown to them Are any hardware vendors making IPv6 capable gear that does hardware switching or are we processed switched for the time being? If you think about the Cisco, as mailing list suggest, have a look at Catalyst 3560-(??) and 3750-(??) series. Also more advanced switches (4500, 4900, 6500) are supporting IPv6 hardware forwarding. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi ___ 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] Older gear and IPv6
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Gert Doering wrote: - some of the cat4000-family devices do IPv4 in hardware and IPv6 in software (we have no 4k, so others will help clarify that) The latest sup6-e does it in hardware: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/modules/ps2797/ps9294/product_data_sheet0900aecd806df543_ps4324_Products_Data_Sheet.html Regards, Janos Mohacsi ___ 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] strange ipv6 problems on 3550 SVI
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Anton Kapela wrote: On Mar 18, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Stephen Cobb wrote: Check out the top of rack switch recommendations thread that started a couple days back. IPv6 has parity with v4 in 12.2(50)-ish IOS, even on the 3550's, so people are claiming. This might help. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps708/product_bulletin_c25_542214_ps6553_Products_Bulletin.html Cisco's been known to have incorrect data in cisco.com/go/fn (which is what checked previously), but when I read the URL you provided, I get the sense that they're referring to ME3400, not cat3550 In checking cisco.com/go/fn, I see that for me3400 12.2(50)SE does indeed provide base IPv6 features: IPv6 Default Router Preference IPv6 Neighbor Discovery IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Throttling IPv6 Routing - EIGRP Support IPv6 Routing: OSPF for IPv6 (OSPFv3) IPv6 Routing: RIP for IPv6 (RIPng) IPv6 Routing: Static Routing IPv6 Routing: Unicast Routing IPv6 Switching: CEF/dCEF Support However, 3550 only shows IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack -- IPv4 and IPv6 Dual Stack is to support coexistence of IPv4 and IPv6 networks for any versions (44,46,etc). It's entirely possible that /go/fn is just way way way wrong, and that (50)SE on 3550 does have fully-working v6, but all appearances and experiences so far seem to indicate it doesn't (despite my desire for it!). If someone's got *working* unicast v6 and protocols on their 3550, please send the list a heads up! Feature Navigator is wrong - as usual. 3550 does not have hw support for IPv6, therefore no support for it. No plan, according to BU (have this info via our account manager), to support IPv6 on these switches. Go for 3560 or 3750 Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi ___ 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
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Michael Robson wrote: It's been a while since I worked with IPV6 and I am now once again plunging myself into this feckless world and was wondering if a couple of holes had now been plugged. What is the accepted way in IPV6 land to dish out IPV6 DNS server addresses (am I correct in saying that if you make use of NDP, you would still have to manually configure DNS servers)? Use DHCPv6 or if your clients are supporting you can distibute DNS information via RAs. Support for adding DNS info to RA is not implemented on cisco routers yet. The other hole, as was, is the lack of IPV6 help address functionality on Cisco routers (well 6500s at least): if I were to go down the route of using DHCP for IPV6, how could I use a central server without this helper functionality? No DHCPv6 helper functionality, but DHCPv6 relay functionality, however I don't know the implementation status on various cisco boxes. Regards, Janos Mohacsi ___ 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 in general was Re: Large networks
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote: Phil Mayers wrote: Grzegorz Janoszka wrote: Yes, unfortunately it is only link-local. I am just trying to figure it out how to marry link-local with our global ipv6 assignments. That's now the way it works AFAICT. Basically, the routers still send router-advertisments. However, the link-local address in the next-hop is the HSRPv6 virtual IP, and floats between the active backup. So you only *need* the link-local. No, my routers do NOT send ra. I disable it as an incredibly insecure mechanism. I disagree. Not worst than DHCP. By the way how do you distribute parameters for local links? Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi ___ 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 in general was Re: Large networks
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Nick Hilliard wrote: On 27/08/2009 11:41, Gert Doering wrote: SLAAC works *very* well for the things it was made for: zero-conf environments, with no dedicated DHCP server - as in home networks or office networks. No it doesn't. After 13 years of ipv6 development, I still can't plug my mac or my windows box into an ipv6 only network and actually expect it to work, because RA/RDNSS client support is so hit and miss. Blame Apple and Microsoft. Regards, Janos Mohacsi ___ 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: IPV6 in general was Re: Large networks
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Leonardo Gama Souza wrote: Why can we forget about HSRP with IPv6? With IPv6 you can get rid of DHCP, forget VPN's, forget DDNS, forget HSRP, and most importantly you no longer need NATs that understand every protocol that runs through it and so remove a possible single point of failure. If you increase the frequency of the NUD to sufficiently low you can emulate HSRP like behaviour. We are using this trick for HA DNS servers with *BSD carp in the server side. Janos Mohacsi Head of HBONE+ project Network Engineer, Deputy Director of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 ___ 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] 2600 series for 100M
According to Cisco: 265x(XM) is capable for the following performance for IP packets: in CEF switching: 4 PPS and around 21 Mbps Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Deric Kwok wrote: Hi Do you know Cisco 2651XM is fine for 100M network? If the memory is 256M, it is ok? Can it support Virtual private network, VLAN and new tcsh command? i check the ios is C2600 Software (C2600-ENTSERVICESK9-M), Version 12.3(23) Do I need to buy any extra memory? Thank you ___ 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] ASR - modular image
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote: Hi, We're considering getting some ASR (1004 and 1006) as peering routers. I would like to know what sort of experience you had with them. What are the advantages of running the 'modular' IOS XE? We tried the 'modular' software on 6500 and we ran into some issues that we didn't have on the integrated one. Should we expect something similar from the ASR platform? Dear Pshem, We started to use ASR 1002 for WAN aggregation a while ago. We did not have much experience with it, but I share what we have: - We started to use 'monolithic' IOS XE, but recently upgraded to 'modular' version. We expecting that IOS XE rebuilds, similar to 12.2(x)Tn, where n is the rebuild number, does not require full reload of the router. We could not prove this yet, since not much rebuild exists for IOS XE. The full reload takes considerable more time than on 7200 or 7600. - We wanted to implement QoS on virtual interface templates as we did on 7200. This not supported yet. - We wanted to implement IPv6 on PPPoE with this device. however Cisco claims the ASR 1000 series has IPv6 support, the IPv6 support exists only for bridged mode broadband solution. Development of few hundred lines of code is postponed recently :( - The device has more horse-power and potential capabilities than 7200 with any NPE. It survived several DoS attacks, while 7200 died. For summary, the ASR100 platform for WAN aggregation is quite ready yet, potentially it will be good in a year time. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi regards Pshem ___ 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] ASR - modular image
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Julio Arruda wrote: - The device has more horse-power and potential capabilities than 7200 with any NPE. It survived several DoS attacks, while 7200 died. Interesting, the Control-plane in the IOS-XE, from what I understand, is not the legacy piece IOS, correct ? Is this better DDoS survival because of the raw CPU power being better, or because the attack was against a downstream customer ? The IP under attack was the router itself ? Or even better, it was some attack that would 'punt' traffic from the QFP to the Route processor ? DoS attacks against the downstream customer. I would be interested in the mitigating possibilities for the other possibilities with ASR 1000. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi For summary, the ASR100 platform for WAN aggregation is quite ready yet, potentially it will be good in a year time. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi ___ 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] POC Nexus 7000 anyone ?
Hi! Have a look at this: http://www.cisconetblog.com/2008/10/cisco-asr-14000-series-router.html Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, John wrote: Hi List Anyone got any details on the ASR14000, its appeared in the price list, and in the export restrictions stuff, but no info on the cisco site proper?? Looks like a bit of a beast, and pricing one up is interesting... J. ___ 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 Subnetting - Service Provider
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Paul Stewart wrote: Hi there... In a SP environment, what's common practice so far with subnetting? Typically, in IPv4 today we use a /30 or /29 for point to point and each device has a /32 loopback... I've been reading a lot of different opinions and everyone seems to recommend a /64 for each link (router) or a server - why so large? I'd love to see a layout of a few routers in a SP core network and how they've subnetted them;) - /64 if you have any chance that you want to use autoconfiguration (may be in the future) - for subnets containing lots of computers I definitiely would go for /64 - /126 you got similar to /30 - /122 in between /64 and /126 - with nice : boundary - or nothing if you are satisfied by link locals - OSPFv3, IS-IS can work without global IPv6 address (even BGP can work on Cisco) Regards, Janos Mohacsi Appreciate it, Paul ___ 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 BGP for 3750 (vanilla)
Don't know . We asked a year ago the same feature. Regards Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 On Wed, 21 May 2008, David Freedman wrote: Many thanks for the swift reply, is it on the roadmap for this platform at all? David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Limited http://www.clara.net -Original Message- From: Tom Zingale (tomz) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 5/21/2008 22:58 To: David Freedman; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: RE: [c-nsp] IPv6 BGP for 3750 (vanilla) The 3750 does not support IPv6 BGP. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Freedman Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:34 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] IPv6 BGP for 3750 (vanilla) Does this work? Release notes for 12.2(25)SEE state this is not a supported feature , currently running 12.2(44)SE2 and no mention of this anymore , commands are there but not accepted such: #router bgp 1234 #address-family ipv6 unicast #nei 2001:988::4 remote-as 1234 % BGP context not been initialized properly. Is this or is this not supported, if not, does anybody know when is it planned? Regards, David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Limited http://www.clara.net ___ 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] 6500 vs. 7600 revisited again (was: CSM for service providers)
Dear All, On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Peter Rathlev wrote: On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 22:15 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: snip PS: I'm sorry. This was my last 6500/7600 BU politics suck big time rant. Aww... It was beginning to get under my skin. ;-D While it won't change any time soon, this is just not the topic for this mailing list, and I'll try to return to constructive postings now. I guess some (a lot?) on this changed their 6500's for 7600's when they had the chance, seeing that it is the SP choice, but maybe in some time we can see what way things went. We, as a semi large-ish enterprise (government health care), chose to change away from 7600 to 6500 as core boxen for our metro/regional network. This was after a long period of problems with instability on SRB. Now we run 6500/SXF and it works like a charm, knock on wood. (For MPLS VPN + a little EoMPLS + a few service modules.) (I'm not trying to keep this thread going by the way. Really!) I have heard some success and failure stories of Cisco 7600. Probably we have to ask the 7600 BU to improve their software and take decisions that make sense: - They should improve quality of the IOS softwares!! - I have heard that SRD will be tested more thoroughly... But currently Cisco 7600 BU played on the customer loyalty... and exploited their inability to change. - Cisco 7600 BU should go something similar to safe harbour - They (6500 BU and 7600 BU) should support all new supervisor cards... RSP720 is not supported in 6500 and sup720-10GE series not supported in 7600. This is nonsense! - They can distinguish certain cards to be supported on Cisco 6500 or Cisco 7600 according the market segment. -LAN type switchingcards should be supported on both C7600 and C6500 - fabric enabled with *720* and non fabric enabled with sup32* and *720* Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 ___ 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] OT : IPv6 - Will it hit like an avalanch?
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Carlos Friacas wrote: See: 4966 Reasons to Move the Network Address Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) to Historic Status. C. Aoun, E. Davies. July 2007. Yes, but there is a new movement called NAT64 that might fly... Regards, Janos Best Regards, ./Carlos On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Church, Charles wrote: Guess I won't bother with Christmas presents that year! So does NAT-PT take off again so they can all work together? None of the tunnelling or dual-stack schemes seem to be getting much traction. Chuck - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Tue Apr 01 10:39:17 2008 Subject: Re: [c-nsp] OT : IPv6 - Will it hit like an avalanch? The Mayas made some paintings and predictions that on 2012-12-21 the world will end. They also painted something like a net that spans around the globe. Since I heard that, I suppose that I know the exact date when we'll all switch to IPv6 ;-) My suggestion would be to leave IPv4 for all the core services, routers, maybe even servers, ... and move all cable/DSL users, web-enabled cell phones, PDAs, UMTS cards, (all those not so vital devices) to IPv6. Greets, Bernd Patrick J Greene schrieb: I keep seeing all of these articles about IPv6 being put off until the last minute and then we will all have to scramble to put it in(http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/033108-ntt-anerica-ipv6.html) . What are your thoughts and plans? Is anybody really running out of IP space, other that ARIN? Need we need to be looking at getting IPv6 Internet connections and hosting on IPv6 now? What about non ISP's? Does corporate America really need to worry? Thanks, Patrick ___ 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/ ___ 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 on C3550, finally? (12.2(44)SE)
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Saku Ytti wrote: On (2008-02-01 08:56 +0100), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And what's the point, anyway? As far as I know the 3550 *hardware* can't do IPv6 routing. As long as you're talking about *software* IPv6 routing, a suitable 2800 router would probably give you better performance... I'd never plan to route IPv6 in 3550, MGMT via IPv6 on the other hand might be interesting in foreseeable future. Alternaively you could choose 3560 or 3750 series (not ME) that is capable for IPv6 routing in a limited way. No BGP IPv6 support... When I asked about the IPv6 BGP support plan - no plan currently. This is very bad :( Regards, Janos ___ 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] c7600 and VPLS
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, MKS wrote: Hi I'm a bit confused about hardware support for VPLS and cisco 7600. If I have only LAN cards e.g. 6724 customer facing and 6704 core facing does that mean that I have no VPLS support or just not H-VPLS ? Can I run some topology of VPLS with only LAN cards (full mesh, hub-spoke, partial mesh). No. For VPLS you need SIP +SPA cards or FlexWan cards: basically handling of large MAC address table + extra signaling needed fo VPLS handled by SIPs. However EoMPLS to point-to-point links are supported Regards, Janos Mohacsi ___ 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] c7600 and VPLS
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Morten Skriver wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:01:43PM +, MKS wrote: I'm a bit confused about hardware support for VPLS and cisco 7600. If I have only LAN cards e.g. 6724 customer facing and 6704 core facing does that mean that I have no VPLS support or just not H-VPLS ? Can I run some topology of VPLS with only LAN cards (full mesh, hub-spoke, partial mesh). You need OSM, SIP/SPA or ES-20 cards as core fasing interface if you want to run VPLS on the 7600. OSM is not supported any more in new software releases. OSM+ maybe. But they won't be supported soon... Regards, Janos Mohacsi ___ 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] c7600 and VPLS
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Luan Nguyen wrote: Not ever? Some experts from Cisco might answer. I think it is mostly HW problem... Regards, Janos Thanks. -lmn On Jan 29, 2008 11:32 AM, Mohacsi Janos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Luan Nguyen wrote: Anyone knows when can the 7200VXR support VPLS? AFAK VPLS is not supported on 7200VXR. Regards, Janos thanks. -lmn On Jan 29, 2008 9:22 AM, Dennis Dubbelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For supporting VPLS on a 7600, OSM or ES20 linecards are needed on the Core facing interfacces. Those cards will handle the label push and pop for SVI based interfaces. You can use your defined hardware as a MPLS Access node and terminate your PW on a VPLS based 7600 router. This router must terminate the incoming PW's over a OSM or ES20 linecard. Cheers,, Dennis Dubbelman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MKS Sent: dinsdag 29 januari 2008 15:02 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] c7600 and VPLS Hi I'm a bit confused about hardware support for VPLS and cisco 7600. If I have only LAN cards e.g. 6724 customer facing and 6704 core facing does that mean that I have no VPLS support or just not H-VPLS ? Can I run some topology of VPLS with only LAN cards (full mesh, hub-spoke, partial mesh). Regards MKS ___ 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/ ___ 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] c7600 and VPLS
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Luan Nguyen wrote: Anyone knows when can the 7200VXR support VPLS? AFAK VPLS is not supported on 7200VXR. Regards, Janos thanks. -lmn On Jan 29, 2008 9:22 AM, Dennis Dubbelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For supporting VPLS on a 7600, OSM or ES20 linecards are needed on the Core facing interfacces. Those cards will handle the label push and pop for SVI based interfaces. You can use your defined hardware as a MPLS Access node and terminate your PW on a VPLS based 7600 router. This router must terminate the incoming PW's over a OSM or ES20 linecard. Cheers,, Dennis Dubbelman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MKS Sent: dinsdag 29 januari 2008 15:02 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] c7600 and VPLS Hi I'm a bit confused about hardware support for VPLS and cisco 7600. If I have only LAN cards e.g. 6724 customer facing and 6704 core facing does that mean that I have no VPLS support or just not H-VPLS ? Can I run some topology of VPLS with only LAN cards (full mesh, hub-spoke, partial mesh). Regards MKS ___ 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/ ___ 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] c7600 and VPLS
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Dmitry Valdov wrote: Hi, It can't be HW problem because 7206 is software router. May be there is a performance or marketing problem.. That is what I am saying: probably hardware of 7206 is not capable of handling it, since it is a SW router On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Mohacsi Janos wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Luan Nguyen wrote: Not ever? Some experts from Cisco might answer. I think it is mostly HW problem... Regards, Janos Thanks. -lmn On Jan 29, 2008 11:32 AM, Mohacsi Janos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Luan Nguyen wrote: Anyone knows when can the 7200VXR support VPLS? AFAK VPLS is not supported on 7200VXR. Regards, Janos thanks. -lmn On Jan 29, 2008 9:22 AM, Dennis Dubbelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For supporting VPLS on a 7600, OSM or ES20 linecards are needed on the Core facing interfacces. Those cards will handle the label push and pop for SVI based interfaces. You can use your defined hardware as a MPLS Access node and terminate your PW on a VPLS based 7600 router. This router must terminate the incoming PW's over a OSM or ES20 linecard. Cheers,, Dennis Dubbelman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MKS Sent: dinsdag 29 januari 2008 15:02 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] c7600 and VPLS Hi I'm a bit confused about hardware support for VPLS and cisco 7600. If I have only LAN cards e.g. 6724 customer facing and 6704 core facing does that mean that I have no VPLS support or just not H-VPLS ? Can I run some topology of VPLS with only LAN cards (full mesh, hub-spoke, partial mesh). Regards MKS ___ 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/ ___ 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/ -- Dmitry Valdov CCIE #15379 (RS and SP) ___ 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] 7604/sup32 (minor correction)
Hi, On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:14:09AM -0800, Mark Boolootian wrote: I'm probably a bad person for asking, and not first searching, but can someone remind me what happens when the FIB fills Sup32 with 12.2SXFsomething seem to crash... (Haven't had that fun experience ourselves, but have received reports from unhappy Sup32 users) We are using Sup32 with 12.2(18)SXF11 for more than 2.5 months without a problem (Earlier we used 12.2(18)SXF10) - of course without full routing table Regards, Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 ___ 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] 6704-10GE bug ? [NC]
Hi, Tipical behaviour if TCAM is overflowed. How many TCAM entries you have? Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oupps sorry about that . This is the log of that specific day .I save you all the boring part but does someone knows what does the entry below means ? Does it means I am not able to enable Cef ?? Oct 29 06:25:35.486: %C6KFIB-4-DISABLED: Hardware FIB forwarding disabled, reverting to only software forwarding. When i try to do a show ip cef this is what happens : sclisgh022#sh ip cef %CEF not running I can't try to enable it during business hour of course. Here is the last system crash report *** *** Information of Last System Crash ** *** Using bootflash:crashinfo. %Error opening bootflash:crashinfo (File not found) *** ** Information of Last System Crash - SP ** *** Using sup-bootflash:crashinfo_20070912-174409. 00:00:04: %PFREDUN-6-STANDBY: Initializing as STANDBY processor 00:00:04: %SYS-3-LOGGER_FLUSHING: System pausing to ensure console debugging output. 00:00:04: %PFREDUN-6-STANDBY: Initializing as STANDBY processor 00:00:04: %SYS-3-LOGGER_FLUSHED: System was paused for 00:00:00 to ensure console debugging output. Firmware compiled 20-Feb-07 14:12 by integ Build [100] 00:00:11: %OIR-SP-STDBY-6-CONSOLE: Changing console ownership to route processor 00:00:11: %SYS-SP-STDBY-3-LOGGER_FLUSHING: System pausing to ensure console debugging output. 00:00:04: %SYS-3-LOGGER_FLUSHED: System was paused for 00:00:00 to ensure console debugging output. Firmware compiled 20-Feb-07 14:12 by integ Build [100] 00:00:11: %OIR-SP-STDBY-6-CONSOLE: Changing console ownership to route processor 00:00:11: %SYS-SP-STDBY-3-LOGGER_FLUSHED: System was paused for 00:00:00 to ensure console debugging output. 00:00:55: %PFREDUN-SP-STDBY-6-STANDBY: Initializing for SSO mode 00:00:55: %SYS-SP-STDBY-3-LOGGER_FLUSHING: System pausing to ensure console debugging output. 00:00:11: %SYS-SP-STDBY-3-LOGGER_FLUSHED: System was paused for 00:00:00 to ensure console debugging output. 00:00:55: %PFREDUN-SP-STDBY-6-STANDBY: Initializing for SSO mode 00:00:55: %SYS-SP-STDBY-3-LOGGER_FLUSHED: System was paused for 00:00:00 to ensure console debugging output. 00:01:12: %PFREDUN-SP-STDBY-6-STANDBY: Failure of ACTIVE detected, STANDBY not ready and reset 00:00:55: %SYS-SP-STDBY-3-LOGGER_FLUSHED: System was paused for 00:00:00 to ensure console debugging output. 00:01:12: %PFREDUN-SP-STDBY-6-STANDBY: Failure of ACTIVE detected, STANDBY not ready and reset %Software-forced reload I though Cef is enable by default on 6500s ? Looks like an harware issue to me but you never know ! Rgds. David - London Telecom and Network Societe Generale Corporate and Investment Banking -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 31/10/07 13:14 To David PONSDESSERRE/gb/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject Re: [c-nsp] 6704-10GE bug ? [NC] On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 12:31 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello list . Has anyone ever encountered a bug on a 6509 using 6704-10GE and Sup 720 3BXL. We are running 12.2(18)SXF8 on it on both 10GE linecards went down on the same time this morning hereWe had to reload it to get things back to normal . Please start a new thread when posting, rather than hijacking others. I've not seen this specific problem, but you give almost no info so it's impossible to tell. What did the routers log? Did you get any crashinfo files on the RP or SP flash? Any inputs are welcome , Cheers D. David Ponsdesserre - London Telecom and Network Societe Generale Corporate and Investment Banking -- * This message and any attachments (the message) are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Neither SOCIETE GENERALE nor any of its subsidiaries or affiliates shall be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. Ce message et toutes les pieces jointes (ci-apres le message) sont confidentiels et etablis a l'intention exclusive de ses
Re: [c-nsp] 65xx or 76xx for 'Distribution Layer'?
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Phil Mayers wrote: On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 10:11 -0400, Tim Durack wrote: Until recently the 65xx and 76xx were the same car, just a different paint job. Now the BUs are differentiating the boxes. 65xx will be running the 12.2SX train. This is aimed more at the enterprise/DC space. If you want modular IOS, and MPLS features targeted more towards the Enterprise, this looks like the way to go. Some of the high density linecards e.g. 6708 don't and apparently won't be supported in 7600/12.2SR According to the recent discussion with Cisco, 6708 will be supported in 12.2SRC - will appear in spring 2008. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 ___ 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] Monitor IPv6 BGP session with SNMP
Hi, I doubt there is a BGP MIB for that. You can do it with custom script without SNMP Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: Hello, Anyone know the OID to use for monitor IPv6 BGP session like IPv4 BGP session with SNMP ? Thank you Best Regards, -- Nicolas DEFFAYET ___ 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] Multicast address AFI for IPv6 in BGP configuration
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Dimitrios Kalogeras wrote: Hash: SHA1 Hi to all of you, Do you know if it sposible to configure Multicast AFI for IPv6 in the BGP configuration in the 12.2(18)SXF9 advanced enterprize IP feature set ? No. It is available only in 12.2(33)SRB and later - if I remember well... Regards, Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 ___ 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] best practices - ipv6 autoconfig on firewalls?
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, matthew zeier wrote: Any best practice ideas on using ipv6 autoconfig on firewall interfaces vs. static assignments? Whatever address you have to put into the DNS as a service points or lots of configuration files you should use static assignments. For example I would recommend using static assignment for different services on servers. You can achieve similar effect to www, ftp CNAMEs. For hosts that does not serve anything use autoconfig. For interfaces address of firewall I would use static Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 ___ 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] Maximum-routes Routes on 7600 with SUP2/PFC2
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Zahid Hassan wrote: Dear All, I am carrying full feed Internet (219K) plus VPNv4 routes (1K) on an OSR-7609 with SUP-2/PFC2. I seems to be getting intermittent packets drops and loss of connectivity from CPEs terminating on this OSR. I wondering if has anything to do with the maximum of routes that can be programmed in the hardware allowed per protocol. The actual usage can be seen with the following command: show platform hardware capacity forwarding Does anyone know the maximum number of routes a SUP-2/PFC2 can carry ? Have a look at table at the end of this page: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps368/prod_eol_notice0900aecd8022200b.html Regards, Janos Mohacsi ___ 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] ipv6ip vs gre
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 07:41:01AM -0700, matthew zeier wrote: What's the difference between an ipv6ip tunnel and a gre tunnel? Well, one is using IPv6-IP encapsulation, and the other is using GRE encapsulation. Sort of like what is the difference between a BMW and a Chrysler? - both are transport vehicles, but they look different... One important difference: ipv6-ip encapsulation is an IPv6 only solution, while GRE is more general one (with some more byte overhead). However if you want to run IS-IS on the tunnel you should use GRE since CLNS can be transfered over GRE... Regards, Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 ___ 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/
