Re: [c-nsp] Best practise/security design for BGP and OSPF

Cheers for the replies - Just to clarify, these templates were for purely PE->RR (Not for transit), we do run key-chain auth on OSPF, and I was hoping to do likewise for iBGP -> RR's, but I dont *think* key-chains are supported in XE (Yet?)...I need to do some more reading, but I believe XR

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ASR vs Juniper

On 5/24/17 4:35 PM, Aaron Gould wrote: > About the MX104 and ACX5000 > > I have ~7,000 dsl customers being nat'd behind /24 of address space on a > pair of MX104's... they run nicely on two mpls l3vpn's... nat inside vrf > (ri) and nat outside vrf (ri) The RE sucks. It's too slow. We are

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ASR vs Juniper

...i re-read some of your criteria... ummm, so I use MX104's and ACX5048's with MP-iBGP for just learning my internal core routes, not big table for world routes... so for what I use those boxes for, they are nice. -Aaron -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ASR vs Juniper

About the MX104 and ACX5000 I have ~7,000 dsl customers being nat'd behind /24 of address space on a pair of MX104's... they run nicely on two mpls l3vpn's... nat inside vrf (ri) and nat outside vrf (ri) I have deployed (~30) ACX5048's as mpls p's and pe's and they are running well. I have

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ASR vs Juniper

> Mark Mason > Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 6:29 PM > > Alright crowd...Ready the rifles and prepare for battle...Cisco ASR or Juniper. > Cost, operability, chassis lifespan new vs. old, memory requirements, etc. So > many details. Feel free to take the post anywhere you'd like. > > Deployments:

Re: [c-nsp] NCS4200 - re-badged ASR920 / ASR900 ?

> Saku Ytti > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 9:50 AM > > On 24 May 2017 at 09:32, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > Personally, I'd still prefer IOS XE on the ASR920. IOS XR is a little > > bloated, and to keep the ASR920 competitive, I don't think it will > > make sense to increase

Re: [c-nsp] vrrpv3 + IPv6 hangs in INIT state

Hi Nick, yes, that's it. Comes up now, thanks for the hint. kind regards Rolf > Rolf Hanßen wrote: >> I just tried to get VRRP + IPv6 running on a Sup2T with 15.1(2)SY1. >> I enabled VRRPv3 and it works at least for IPv4. > > Yeah, this caught me too. The primary ipv6 address for a vrrpv3

Re: [c-nsp] NCS4200 - re-badged ASR920 / ASR900 ?

On 24 May 2017 at 09:32, Mark Tinka wrote: > Personally, I'd still prefer IOS XE on the ASR920. IOS XR is a little > bloated, and to keep the ASR920 competitive, I don't think it will make > sense to increase hardware resources needed to run IOS XR. Just add commit to

[c-nsp] CRS keep generating errror "cp: Can't open destination file. (/harddisk:/bcm-logger...)"

Hi All, A new CRS8 keeps generating messages as the below message on the console and cannot get in with default user Administrator/ciscocisco cp: Can't open destination file. (/harddisk:/bcm-logger/bcm-20170524-224748/node0_RP1_CPU0/persist.0): No such file or directory cp: Can't open

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ASR vs Juniper

On 5/9/17 7:29 PM, Mark Mason wrote: > Alright crowd...Ready the rifles and prepare for battle...Cisco ASR or > Juniper. Cost, operability, chassis lifespan new vs. old, memory > requirements, etc. So many details. Feel free to take the post anywhere you'd > like. I'm really liking the new

Re: [c-nsp] Typhoon support on XRe

On 5/2/17 8:22 AM, James Jun wrote: > > To be honest, MX104 seems kind of same story on Juniper land, it was cool to > see modular RE back when it was introduced and product seemed to have good > potential on design overall, but at this point, I think it's best to wait for > the upcoming

Re: [c-nsp] Typhoon support on XRe

On 5/1/17 7:24 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > Clearly home users aren't driving 10GE, 100GE, 400GE demand, and I > don't anticipate this changing soon. Perhaps vendors still think > market is same as it was 5-10 years ago, where everyone wanted faster > connection on every cycle, but we're now in era

Re: [c-nsp] Typhoon support on XRe

On 5/1/17 7:24 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > Warning largely content free pondering follows. > > This is not XR specific, market is no longer driven by service > providers/access networks, but by content networks. And content > networks want ever faster interfaces in ever denser form factor. > 1GE is

Re: [c-nsp] BGP-ORR Scaling on vRR

On 4/28/17 4:54 PM, Dhamija Amit via cisco-nsp wrote: > Hi > I am testing the feature BGP-ORR to have a centralized Route Reflectors in > our network. > The feature works well and it ensures optimal routing to the nearest clients. > I have some concerns on the scaling of this feature, with

Re: [c-nsp] NCS4200 - re-badged ASR920 / ASR900 ?

On 4/26/17 9:23 AM, George Giannousopoulos wrote: > Hi, > > Concerning IOS-XR on ASR-900 series, during a recent meeting with Cisco we > were told that it's coming with RSP4.. > Haven't heard anything for the ASR920 though.. Personally, I'd still prefer IOS XE on the ASR920. IOS XR is a little

Re: [c-nsp] NCS4200 - re-badged ASR920 / ASR900 ?

On 4/25/17 8:22 AM, Mattias Gyllenvarg wrote: > Perhaps it will take the place of the ME3800X? The ME3800X still has larger resources than an ME3600X, which is on par with the ASR920. I suspect a newer ASR9x0 will replace the ME3800X. Mark. ___