[c-nsp] uBR10K PRE4-RP Version 12.2(33)SCG6 - PFX Crashes

Hello, In the past two weeks, we've had 4 different UBR10Ks with PRE4s crash for unknown reasons. They're all on 12.2(33)SCG6, and have been with no issues for about two years. We didn't make any configuration changes, or push any new features leading up to this, they just seemed to happen

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 23:04, Saku Ytti wrote: > Quite different thing, right? You won't get balancing for single > prefix to multiple edges with IGP/LDP. you just get multiple paths to > same edge? That is okay for us because we have a very distributed edge, each focusing on being the best path to an

Re: [c-nsp] spanning-tree for local switching on ASR920

I actually just got this kind of working, but had to use MST. Cisco IOS XE Software, Version 03.18.00.SP.156-2.SP-ext I'm going to introduce a L2 loop if I can. This is the primary Internet Facing ASR920, and the southbound switching configuration, and the client gateway BDI. interface

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12 March 2018 at 22:58, Mark Tinka wrote: > We are doing ECMP at the IGP/LDP layer. Quite different thing, right? You won't get balancing for single prefix to multiple edges with IGP/LDP. you just get multiple paths to same edge? -- ++ytti

Re: [c-nsp] spanning-tree for local switching on ASR920

On 12/Mar/18 22:21, Nick Cutting wrote: > Sorry to drag this one up - Gert did you ever get a working config for this? > > I plan on using a pair of 920's with a layer 2 broadcast domain on the 12 > gigabit Ethernet ports, and using the 10g ports to connect to separate > carriers, bust also

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 20:43, Saku Ytti wrote: > add-path is not just about backup path, it's also about sending ecmp paths. > > Some vendors do and all vendor should have add-path toggle separately > to how many best paths to send and how many backup paths to send. > You'd likely always want all ECMP

[c-nsp] GRE tunnel issue - ASR 903

Hello all, I tested gre tunnel on a ASR 903 and I have slow speed (less than 10Mbps) when doing some iperf test whereras when gre tunnel is not used I can reach the wire speed. I tried to play with the mtu without success. Do someone have already experiencing this? It looks like that gre

Re: [c-nsp] spanning-tree for local switching on ASR920

Sorry to drag this one up - Gert did you ever get a working config for this? I plan on using a pair of 920's with a layer 2 broadcast domain on the 12 gigabit Ethernet ports, and using the 10g ports to connect to separate carriers, bust also use 1 10g port to carry the HSRP for the /24 customer

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

add-path is not just about backup path, it's also about sending ecmp paths. Some vendors do and all vendor should have add-path toggle separately to how many best paths to send and how many backup paths to send. You'd likely always want all ECMP paths but at most you care about 1 backup path.

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 19:20, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > With regards to ORR, are you using add-path already or RRs are doing > all the path selection on behalf of clients please? > When Add-Paths (and Diverse-Paths) came out, we did some basic benchmarking for re-route convergence

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 19:36, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > Cluster-ID saves RAM only if RR1 and RR2 are connected like in your > case, if they are not and RR1s only talk to RR1 in other POPs and RR2s > only talk to RR2s in other POPs/Clusters then the Cluster-ID is just > for loop prevention

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 19:14, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > Hmm well ok, I guess if you have one set of static routes on RR1 and > one set of static routes/loopback on RR2 –then sure you might want to > use iBGP session between RR1 and RR2 for redundancy purposes (if say > the particular RR1 is

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

Cluster-ID saves RAM only if RR1 and RR2 are connected like in your case, if they are not and RR1s only talk to RR1 in other POPs and RR2s only talk to RR2s in other POPs/Clusters then the Cluster-ID is just for loop prevention really. And on a side note, Although Cluster-ID saves some

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

Oh I see that makes sense, if all your revenue is in Internet services then of course it’s hard to justify building separate iBGP infrastructure to protect the handful of pure VPN customers. With regards to ORR, are you using add-path already or RRs are doing all the path selection on

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

Hmm well ok, I guess if you have one set of static routes on RR1 and one set of static routes/loopback on RR2 –then sure you might want to use iBGP session between RR1 and RR2 for redundancy purposes (if say the particular RR1 is the only place you originate the given route from) –but why not

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 16:19, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > In iBGP infrastructures I used or built the use of common/unique cluster IDs > is not saving any memory and is used solely for preventing a RR to learn its > own advertisements from the network. That saves RAM, otherwise with unique

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 13:54, Saku Ytti wrote: > Typical reason for RR1, RR2 to have iBGP to each other is when they > are in forwarding path and are not dedicated RR, but also have > external BGP to them. Or if the RR's are originating routes themselves. > In your case, if the cluster isn't even

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 13:02, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > If RR1s and RR2s never talk to each to each other then it doesn't matter > whether they have common or unique Cluster-IDs Agreed. But in our case, they do. > Job is right, you should at least use separate TCP sessions for different >

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 12:34, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > The only scenario I can think of is if your two RRs say RR1 and RR2 in > a POP > serving a set of clients (by definition a cluster btw) -if these two RRs > have an iBGP session to each other - which is a big NONO when you are using > out

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

In iBGP infrastructures I used or built the use of common/unique cluster IDs is not saving any memory and is used solely for preventing a RR to learn its own advertisements from the network. adam netconsultings.com ::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry:: >

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 03:06:25PM +0200, Saku Ytti wrote: > Routing loop to me sounds like operational problem, that things are > broken. That will not happen. Indeed, that is what ORIGINATOR_ID is for. Kind regards, Job ___ cisco-nsp mailing list

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

Routing loop to me sounds like operational problem, that things are broken. That will not happen. Otherwise we're saying every network has routing loops, because if you consider all RIB in every box, there are tons of loops. I think we all agree most networks are loop free :> You are saving DRAM,

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

Ok I agree if a speaker is not connect to both (all) RRs in a cluster then you need to make up for that by connecting RRs to each other. Well isn't avoiding routing loops ultimately saving DRAM? I'd argue the cluster-id comparison is either about preventing acceptance of one's own advertisement

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12 March 2018 at 13:41, wrote: Typical reason for RR1, RR2 to have iBGP to each other is when they are in forwarding path and are not dedicated RR, but also have external BGP to them. And no, clusterID are not used for loop prevention, they are used to save

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

Hi, The point' I'm trying to make is that I don't see a reason why RR1 and RR2 in a common cluster should have a session to each other and also why RR1 in one cluster should have session to RR2s in all other clusters. (and if RR1 and RR2 share a common cluster ID then session between them is a

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

> Job Snijders [mailto:j...@ntt.net] > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 10:51 AM > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:39:13PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: > > Each major PoP has been configured with its unique, global Cluster-ID. > > > > This has been scaling very well for us. > > > > I think the Multiple

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

Hey, RR1---RR2 | | PE1+ 1) PE1 sends 1M routes to RR2, RR2 CaseA) Same clusterID 1) RR1 and RR2 have 1M entries CaseB) Unique clusterID 1) RR1 and RR2 have 2M entries Cluster is promise that every client peers with exactly same set of RRs, so there is no need to for RRs to

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

> Job Snijders > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 12:21 PM > > Folks - i'm gonna cut short here: by sharing the cluster-id across multiple > devices, you lose in topology flexibility, robustness, and simplicity. > Gent's I have no idea what you're talking about. How can one save or burn RAM if