Re: [c-nsp] N77k and IPv6 traffic through SNMP (bug CSCuy92828)
Hello, We experience the same problem with our Nexus 9k switches that we have. The OID returns some kilobits of traffic which in reality is much more. The version of NX-OS is 7.0(3)I2(2d) I don't have any news regarding this fix which is very annoying and I don't believe its HW limitation Best Regards, Michalis ___ 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] Resilient Ethernet Protocol (REP)
I don't have a ME3600 that in ME3800 I have used the following configuration , which applies only xconnect to the whole interface, and can pass all frames inside the EoMPLS tunnel Me 3600 PE1: interface GigabitEthernet0/xx no switchport mtu 9216 no ip address service-policy input ratelimit_200Mb xconnect xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 100 encapsulation mpls Me 3600 PE2: interface GigabitEthernet0/yy no switchport mtu 9216 no ip address service-policy input ratelimit_200Mb xconnect yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy 100 encapsulation mpls ___ 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] ASR920 Opinions
We use them as an access/aggregation "small" router installed either inside outdoor cabinets for broadband and ME services or at small PoPs for aggregation MSANs. Some of the features are, MPLS, BGP (with RFC3107), LDP, RSVP, BFD. The backhauling is 2x10G in a ring topology with other ASR920. Although the buffers are small, as other mention we apply the queue-limit towards 1G ports. For its price it's a modest router which works for us, as part of the access/aggregation network. We don't use it as full internet router so the small TCAM it's currently no problem for our case. If we face this kind of problem then the bgp selective download feature will be the solution for us. --- Michalis ___ 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 920 and Rosen multicast VPN?
Hello Peter, We use the asr920 with the draft rosen implementation with success with 3.18S IOS Release. Please be aware that you need to change the SDM profile to video for this to work, but it changes the TCAM resources in favor of video, which reduces the IPv4 size in half Please check this link : http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr920/configuration/guide/sys-sdm-xe-3s-asr920-book.html Thanks, Michalis ___ 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 920 firmware bugs in 03.18.00.S / 15.6(2)S
Ι Can confirm, during our upgrade to 3.18S on the ASR-920-12CZ-A/D we didn't face any 10G change to the admin down state. The only thing that we faced is that the router didn't respond to any packet forward towards/from the box and we had to do a reload. Michalis ___ 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 ASR920-24SZ-IM BVI Feature Limitations
Hello, Irrelevant of BVI feature, one another limitation also is the lack of support of mVPN (Draft-rosen model) and only mldp feature is supported at least prior to the IOS 3.17. Although, 3.17 CCO says that it supports the feature, during testing, there as some issues, such as no pim neighborship over VRF which seems the ASR920 cannot perform neighborship with the other PE, although the other PEs see the ASR920 as a neighbor. The above, can be "fix" with the selection of SDM video profile, that enables the neighborship over VRF to be working does come up, but no mcast traffic is flowing. We have an open case with TAC for this. Also in 3.17 the IPv4 scale witth SDP IP profile is increased from 20k to 24k but it decreases some others eg. VPLS instances etc. Michalis Bersimis ___ 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 ASR920-24SZ-IM BVI Feature Limitations
I am testing draft rosen model, as stated here for IOS XE 3.17 (http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr920/release/notes/ASR920_rel_notes/new_features.html#pgfId-1085169 ) Michalis -Original Message- From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 8:36 AM To: Μπερσίμης Μιχάλης (900356); cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ASR920-24SZ-IM BVI Feature Limitations On 19/Jan/16 08:22, michalis.bersi...@hq.cyta.gr wrote: > Hello, > > Irrelevant of BVI feature, one another limitation also is the lack of support > of mVPN (Draft-rosen model) and only mldp feature is supported at least prior > to the IOS 3.17. Although, 3.17 CCO says that it supports the feature, during > testing, there as some issues, such as no pim neighborship over VRF which > seems the ASR920 cannot perform neighborship with the other PE, although the > other PEs see the ASR920 as a neighbor. > > The above, can be "fix" with the selection of SDM video profile, that > enables the neighborship over VRF to be working does come up, but no mcast > traffic is flowing. We have an open case with TAC for this. Also in 3.17 the > IPv4 scale witth SDP IP profile is increased from 20k to 24k but it decreases > some others eg. VPLS instances etc. The ASR920 supports NG-MVPN, and we tested this. Are you testing NG-MVPN or Rosen? Mark. ___ 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 on 15.3(3)S5
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 1:08 PM, James Bensley jwbens...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, What are you running on your 7600's that are performing typical PE services such as MPLS L2 L3 VPNs, transit, peering. I have a couple with RSP720-3CXL-10GEs I want to move up to 15.3(3)S5 (don't ask where they are coming from!). I wznted the commnuity feedback, anyone running this, how is it for you? Are you running a 15.4 instead perhaps? I have more live experiance with the version I have chosen on other platforms so that is my reasoning for not choosing a 15.4 image. I've got a TAC case open too but their opinion will likely be biased. 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/ Hello, During upgrading to 15.3, we encounter some ES+ Line cards crashed which we had to do RMA. I would better contact your support team in order to prepare them when you are you going to schedule your upgrade plan so they can get you at least a proactive RMA spare unit for your Line Cards. Michalis. ___ 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] Most Stable IOS-XR Version for ASR9K
We have also the IOS XR 4.3 version which is stable so far. Michalis Bersimis ___ 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 AtoM mpls issue (Gert Doering)
Hi,
In 7600 with 67xx Cards you can make in interface Vlan EoMPLS. I have implement
this with SRD and SRE IOS Take care that both end of the xconnect has the same
MTU!! If you put the following command it should inform you for any problems!
sh mpls l2transport vc 701 detail
Local interface: Vl701 up, line protocol up, Eth VLAN 701 up
Interworking type is Ethernet
Destination address: 1.1.1.2, VC ID: 701, VC status: up
Output interface: Te7/1, imposed label stack {115 2707}
Preferred path: not configured
Default path: active
Next hop: 10.10.10.10
Create time: 20w1d, last status change time: 3w2d
Signaling protocol: LDP, peer 1.1.1.2:0 up
Targeted Hello: 1.1.1.1(LDP Id) - 1.1.1.2, 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 local SSS circuit status rcvd: No fault
Last local SSS circuit status sent: No fault
Last local LDP TLVstatus sent: No fault
Last remote LDP TLVstatus rcvd: No fault
Last remote LDP ADJstatus rcvd: No fault
MPLS VC labels: local 387, remote 2707
Group ID: local 0, remote 0
MTU: local 1600, remote 1600
Remote interface description:
MAC Withdraw: sent:2, received:0
Sequencing: receive disabled, send disabled
Control Word: On (configured: autosense)
VC statistics:
transit packet totals: receive 70459, send 0
transit byte totals: receive 4510236, send 0
transit packet drops: receive 0, seq error 0, send 0
interface Vlan701
mtu 1600
no ip address
xconnect 1.1.1.2 701 encapsulation mpls
Best Regards,
Michalis Bersimis
___
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 AtoM mpls issue (Gert Doering)
Yes this might be true, for the CORE-facing side, in our implementation we have these cards facing the CORE. -Original Message- From: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@greenie.muc.de] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 10:55 AM To: Μπερσίμης Μιχάλης (900356) Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 7600 AtoM mpls issue (Gert Doering) Hi, On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 10:41:20AM +0300, michalis.bersi...@hq.cyta.gr wrote: In 7600 with 67xx Cards you can make in interface Vlan EoMPLS. As far as I understand, only if you have ES(+) or SIP cards on the core-facing side of your 7600. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ___ 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] Internet inside a VRF?
Hi, Putting internet in a vrf is not that bad. I agree with some people say that separate the global routing table with vrf is easier, especially for networks that are deploying MPLS routers from scratch. I don't see any advantages from putting internet Prefixes in the global routing table. Best Regards, Michalis Bersimis -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:58:58 -0500 From: Ge Moua moua0...@umn.edu To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Internet inside a VRF? Message-ID: 4f600972.6040...@umn.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed In RE networks, separation of commodity Internet-1 and Internet-2 traffic. -- Regards, Ge Moua University of Minnesota Alumnus Email: moua0...@umn.edu -- On 3/13/12 8:17 PM, Jose Madrid wrote: I would like to understand why you guys would do this? What is the reasoning behind this? Super granular control? Cant this level of granularity be achieved with route-maps? Sent from my iPhone On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Dan Armstrongd...@beanfield.com wrote: We have all our Internet peers and customers inside a VRF currently, and our Cisco SE thinks we're stark raving mad, and should redesign and put everything back in the global table. This is all on ASR 9Ks and 7600s. On 2012-03-13, at 8:12 PM, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote: Hi, On 14 March 2012 11:59, Dan Armstrongd...@beanfield.com wrote: I know this topic has been discussed a million times, but just wanted to get an updated opinion on how people are feeling about this: In a service provider network, how do people feel about putting the big Internet routing table, all their peers and customers inside a VRF? Keep the global table for just infrastructure links? In my previous role we've done just that. One internet VRF for all transit functions, separate vrfs for peering and customers and import-export statements to tie them all together. All done on ASR1k (mainly 1006, but a few of 1002 as well). kind 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/ ___ 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/
