Thanks for confirmation all :)
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/
BDI supports PVST also i tried with 3.10 S. I'm not sure its officially
supported . one issue we faced officially GLBP not supported. If you are
converting from IOS BVI to BDI please keep it in mind you are introducing a
switch to your network.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Chuck Church wrote
SVI - Switched Virtual Interface is defined in IOS for configuring L3
interfaces. For example in ME3600X/ME3800X/ME3600X-24CX, SVI is being
configured under EVC for configuring IP/L3VPN/MPLS interfaces.
BDI - It is same the thing as SVI but in IOS XE. IOS XE has the notion of BDI.
For example A
Hi all,
I am having trouble with getting a session to use a local ip pool.
I am sending the following avpairs to the session from Radius:
lcp:allow-subinterface=yes
ip:vrf-id=TESTVRF
ip:addr-pool=TESTPOOL
ip:ip-unnumbered=Loopback212
On the router:
ip local pool TESTPOOL 100.64.8.1 100.64.15.2
You need to look at the disks on the two locations that are failing.
Error: - 0/6/CPU0: disk0: (16 packages cannot be added)
Error: - 0/14/CPU0: disk0: (13 packages cannot be added)
dir disk0: location 0/6/cpu0
dir disk0: location 0/14/cpu0
You probably have a lot of crash dumps on the LC
Last I checked, the BDI will only support MST for a spanning tree protocol.
That was a show-stopper for us, weren't prepared for a migration everywhere
to that. There are also more limitations for BDIs -
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr1000/configuration/guide/cha
ssis/asrswcfg/bd
Hello James.
Functionally BDI and SVI the same. BDI used with EVC. So on ASR routers you
use BDI on switches you use SVI's.
Have a good day.
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
James Bensley
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:09 PM
To
On 16 September 2014 09:30, James Bensley wrote:
> What is the different between a BDI on ASRs and an SVI?
>
> Looking around the Internet they seem to be SVIs that you can bridge a
> service instance to except they are called Bridge Domain Interface
> instead of Switch Virtual Interface (I guess
Hi all,
RP/0/6/CPU0:router#adm install add tar ftp://1.1.1.1/c12k-4.2.1.1409082.tar
syn
RP/0/6/CPU0:Sep 16 06:58:03.102 : instdir[241]:
%INSTALL-INSTMGR-3-INSTALL_OPERATION_USER_ERROR : User error occurred during
install operation 166. See 'show install log 166 detail' for more
infoError:C
What is the different between a BDI on ASRs and an SVI?
Looking around the Internet they seem to be SVIs that you can bridge a
service instance to except they are called Bridge Domain Interface
instead of Switch Virtual Interface (I guess becaus these are routers
not switches?).
Any other differe
On 16/09/2014 09:27, Rich Lewis wrote:
> I know this is good practice, but only because I've heard lots of (very
> knowledgeable!) people *say* that it's good practice.
next-hop-self + source-interface lo0 forces the next-hop of the BGP NLRI to
be the loopback interface. This means that:
1. you
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark
> Tinka
> Sent: 16 September 2014 07:10
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] I-BGP/IGP question
>
>
> First, use NEXT_HOP=self; it's good practice.
>
I know this is good practice, but only because I've
On 16/09/2014 05:55, Wes Smith wrote:
> I've often wondered how large ISPs handle some basic IGP design issues
Phil Smith's "BGP for Internet Service Providers" presentation explains a
standard approach:
> http://www.menog.org/presentations/menog-2/philip-smith-bgp-techniques.pdf
Nick
> Spyros Kakaroukas
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 8:48 AM
> Lately, there have been a few designs that offer extreme scalability, based
> on rfc3107 ( bgp-lu ) , but I've yet to hear of anyone actually implementing
> them .
Actually rfc3107 is really old and is usually used by folks who use
There's some performance degradation when using BDI instead of sub-interfaces
adam
From: CiscoNSP List [mailto:cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:19 AM
To: b.turn...@twt.it; Vitkovský Adam; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] ME3600 - SVI's + Service Instanc
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:55:40AM -0400, Wes Smith wrote:
> I've often wondered how large ISPs handle some basic IGP design issues re
> routing between I-BGP nodes in the network.
All routers on the path need to have "full information" (not necessarily
full tables, but they need to agree o
In case you have a router in the middle that doesnt speak BGP, then traffic
will be blackholed (unless you redistibute that BGP route into your IGP,
check the traditional cisco bgp synchronization rule)
The answer is simple, enable bgp on every hop, or create a bgp-free core
using MPLS or tunnelin
On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 08:48:17 AM Spyros Kakaroukas
wrote:
> Exactly what Mark said. The only design you'd have an
> issue with that is if you had routers that do not run
> BGP. Even then, you could solve that with MPLS ( not
> necessarily TE, a good old bgp-free core design with LDP
> w
18 matches
Mail list logo
