Re: [c-nsp] Xconnect on Portchannel interface [EoMPLS]
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 08:58:17AM +1000, David Hughes wrote: This is the configuration we use. N * GigE port based xconnect on the south side of the PE router and configure the port-channel on the ce device. Our PEs are multi 10GE attached. This has worked very well for us. Only problem is picking up loss of link at the far end. You really have no choice but to rely on aggressive udld to pick up the circuit loss and take it out of the port-channel. But, in our case the end systems are 6500s so you can't do fast udld timers.You may have ~~ 1sec reconvergence at L3 but an L2 issue over a pw takes about 20 seconds to be picked up by udld. Would fast rate LACP help here. Should be able to get lacp to notice that the link is missing in 5 seconds Colin -- Colin Whittaker +353 (0)86 8211 965 http://colin.netech.ie co...@netech.ie ___ 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] Xconnect on Portchannel interface [EoMPLS]
On 29/10/2009, at 5:02 PM, Colin Whittaker wrote: Would fast rate LACP help here. Should be able to get lacp to notice that the link is missing in 5 seconds Interesting thought. Not that familiar with LACP. I can say for sure that PAgP is relying on IOS's understanding of link state so until the interface drops you just black-hole traffic down a port-channel member that doesn't go anywhere. UDLD Aggressive will yank the interface down and pull it from the port-channel, _ eventually _ Does LACP do more end-to-end signalling that could help here? David ... ___ 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] Xconnect on Portchannel interface [EoMPLS]
On 20/10/2009, at 8:01 PM, Marko Milivojevic wrote: I had another thought after my original reply, but for some reason I didn't send you follow-up. Have you tried not enabling EC on Cisco doing xconnect (PE) at all and simply having it just on end-nodes: A===PE1---PE2===B This is the configuration we use. N * GigE port based xconnect on the south side of the PE router and configure the port-channel on the ce device. Our PEs are multi 10GE attached. This has worked very well for us. Only problem is picking up loss of link at the far end. You really have no choice but to rely on aggressive udld to pick up the circuit loss and take it out of the port-channel. But, in our case the end systems are 6500s so you can't do fast udld timers.You may have ~~ 1sec reconvergence at L3 but an L2 issue over a pw takes about 20 seconds to be picked up by udld. David ... ___ 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] Xconnect on Portchannel interface [EoMPLS]
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Marko Milivojevic wrote: Hello. 2009/10/16 Lukasz Trabinski luk...@trabinski.net: Hello I have problem with xconnect on portchannel interface. [...] How to do xconnect from untagged portchanel interface? Have you tried disabling LACP on the EC interface and have it statically configured (mode on)? Yes, it's works but only from cisco side. On other side of port-chanell we have Force10 device and when I configure mode on, I have port-channel UP. on cisco device, but down on Force10. The question is, why it's works when xconnect is configured on subinterface with tagged vlan? Maybe is it conflict with LACP/MPLS signalization? ___ 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] Xconnect on Portchannel interface [EoMPLS]
Yes, it's works but only from cisco side. On other side of port-chanell we have Force10 device and when I configure mode on, I have port-channel UP. on cisco device, but down on Force10. The question is, why it's works when xconnect is configured on subinterface with tagged vlan? Maybe is it conflict with LACP/MPLS signalization? I had another thought after my original reply, but for some reason I didn't send you follow-up. Have you tried not enabling EC on Cisco doing xconnect (PE) at all and simply having it just on end-nodes: A===PE1---PE2===B Enable EC just on A and B and do simple xconnect from all interfaces on PE1 and PE2? My knowledge is very rusty, but it could be that LACP will be carried over in port mode. -- Marko CCIE #18427 (SP) My network blog: http://cisco.markom.info/ ___ 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] Xconnect on Portchannel interface [EoMPLS]
Hello I have problem with xconnect on portchannel interface. Portchannel is up and works correctly when configuration is: interface Port-channel10 mtu 9216 no ip address load-interval 30 storm-control broadcast level 2.00 storm-control multicast level 2.00 end interface Port-channel10.508 no ip address encapsulation dot1Q 508 xconnect 10.50.0.3 508 encapsulation mpls end waw-sw1#show mpls l2transport vc 508 Local intf Local circuit Dest addressVC ID Status - -- --- -- -- Po10.508 Eth VLAN 508 10.50.0.3 508UP waw-sw1#show interfaces description | inc Po10 Po10 up up Po10.508 up up but I want to do with untagged vlan: waw-sw1#show running-config interface port-channel 10 Building configuration... Current configuration : 211 bytes ! interface Port-channel10 mtu 9216 no ip address load-interval 30 storm-control broadcast level 2.00 storm-control multicast level 2.00 xconnect 10.50.0.3 508 encapsulation mpls end waw-sw1#show mpls l2transport vc 508 Local intf Local circuit Dest addressVC ID Status - -- --- -- -- Po10 Ethernet 10.50.0.3 508UP It's works only 2-3 minutes and after it portchannel change do state down. Oct 16 15:07:00.404: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Port-channel10, changed state to down Oct 16 15:07:00.404: %XCONNECT-5-PW_STATUS: MPLS peer 10.50.0.3 vcid 508, VC DOWN, VC state DOWN Oct 16 15:07:02.599: %EC-SP-5-L3DONTBNDL2: Gi1/9 suspended: LACP currently not enabled on the remote port. Oct 16 15:07:08.500: %EC-SP-5-L3DONTBNDL2: Gi1/10 suspended: LACP currently not enabled on the remote port. Oct 16 15:07:11.440: %EC-SP-5-L3DONTBNDL2: Gi1/9 suspended: LACP currently not enabled on the remote port. How to do xconnect from untagged portchanel interface? -- ŁT___ 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] Xconnect on Portchannel interface [EoMPLS]
2009/10/16 Lukasz Trabinski luk...@trabinski.net: Hello I have problem with xconnect on portchannel interface. [...] How to do xconnect from untagged portchanel interface? Have you tried disabling LACP on the EC interface and have it statically configured (mode on)? -- Marko CCIE #18427 (SP) My network blog: http://cisco.markom.info/ ___ 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/
