Re: [c-nsp] BGP routes disappearing

Hi Hank If I understand correctly you are trying to send bgp routes to a router that have a next hop local to the router? I think this would contrast with the route selection process and not be accepted.. as the route would not be installable. i.e. The router would route it to itself on the Ge

[c-nsp] ios xe amsterdam

Hi Everyone, Posting this as it made for quite an interesting debug, and am hoping to save someone some future grief. When using ASR 1ks and ios XE Amsterdam 17.3.6 we encountered an issue related to pppoe users and radius attributes. We saw issues trying to send cisco AV pair ip:outacl or

Re: [c-nsp] Internet border router recommendations and experiences

Hi > > So if Cisco price themselves out of the market with their flagship Ethernet > box > - the ASR9000 - that just makes it easier for customers to consider Juniper, > Arista, Nokia, e.t.c. They also seem to want to follow the same route in metro with the NCS540s and this global bandwidth

Re: [c-nsp] Redistribute interface address as a /32 or /128 into BGP

--- Begin Message --- Hi, > > >> Now some of my monitoring and management traffic, which is addressed > >> to the customer facing interface addresses takes the shortest path > >> into > >> 10.0.0.0/24 and through this network and might then hit the interface > >> of the router. But there is a

Re: [c-nsp] asr1001-x : dynamic qos on virtual-template

--- Begin Message --- Hi We set a parent class with the shape average of the line ( assuming you know the speed) policy-map 4M32k-parent class class-default shape average 400 service-policy 4M32k And then use priority for a voice queue policy-map 4M32k class VoIP-RTP priority

Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 Break Into ROMMON

--- Begin Message --- Hi Scott, You may also try and sniff to see if a 920 looks for a boot server during the process. Another long shot ..but before making a new coffee table out of it it's worth a shot. Brian > -Original Message- > From: cisco-nsp On Behalf Of Scott > Miller >

Re: [c-nsp] PPPoE and HTTP Redirect

--- Begin Message --- Hi > > Hello all, I’m looking for some recommendations. I have a customer, an ISP, > who is doing PPPoE for residential and “some” smaller business accounts. > PPPoE terminated on an ASR9010, DaloRadius for authentication and IP > assignments. DaloRadius is configured for

Re: [c-nsp] asr920 - pppoe - Filter-Id is fail

--- Begin Message --- > > Hello Everyone, > > I thought the pppoe server was not supported on the asr 920 platform ? AFAIK it is not officially supported and is not handled in hardware, but does "work". So it would be all cpu , will not scale and throughput would be limited. It does support

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1001X PPPoE COS 2

--- Begin Message --- Hi > Hi > > I must add the 802.1P TAG on the pppoe connections coming from a > particular interface on Cisco ASR1001X > If you need to set cos on incoming packets (coming from a particular interface), on the interface you can apply a incoming classification policy map

Re: [c-nsp] cisco ACL filter outbound only

--- Begin Message --- > >     Again, the cli seems to indicate support for all the things necessary, > which > includes the idea of 'established', which is why I ask if THIS platform does > in > fact do what the cli suggests: > No it doesn't You need to understand what established does. It

Re: [c-nsp] cisco ACL filter outbound only

--- Begin Message --- > > It just seems to me that it is indeed possible using the above to put it > together. Is this all just non-working on this platform? > The difference is in connection state. An ACL does not track it so you can do Permit tcp any any established Inbound or outbound on a

Re: [c-nsp] Somewhat quirky question regarding C6513

--- Begin Message --- > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:54:51PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: > > It had been a while since we run switches that big, but when it came > > time to replace our C6880-X in some PoP's, we went with Arista's 7508E. > > I was about to suggest that, but the 7500 series is WAY

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9010 BNG setup

--- Begin Message --- Hi Scott Yes you need to check all your attributes being passed because they are different for the 9ks with respect to 1ks For example ip:ip-unnumbered=loopback 0 would need to be ipv4:ipv4-unnumbered=loopback 0 to send routes you need to use framed-route and not cisco

Re: [c-nsp] SD-WAN design for large scale

--- Begin Message --- Hi, > > Omar: Yes, by default you will have a full mesh of tunnels. It's easy > > to build Hub and Spoke topology if you want to. Often large > > organizations build regional Hub and Spoke where you traverse a Hub to > > go to another geographical region, such as EU to US

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 920 Strange SFP behavior

--- Begin Message --- Hi Shawn, Are you by chance switching from sfp to sfp+ on the ports by chance? Because the 12sz launches scripts when changing speeds that basically default the config and rewrites it, but doesn't always work as planned.. There was a discussion here about it a while back.

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1k mlppp speedlimit?

--- Begin Message --- Hi Harald, > sh int Vi2.304 > Virtual-Access2.304 is up, line protocol is up > Hardware is Virtual Access interface > Description: PPPoE-transport > Interface is unnumbered. Using address of Loopback0 > MTU 1492 bytes, BW 10 Kbit/sec, DLY 10 usec, > > -- >

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1k mlppp speedlimit?

--- Begin Message --- Hi Harald > >Weird things happen when you apply qos to link members and I would try > without qos in general as I remember it being kinda flakey with MLPPP. > > Actually AFAIR this happens when using portchannels as backhaul-transport we > do qos on mlppp for virtually all

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1k mlppp speedlimit?

--- Begin Message --- Hi Harald, Are you using qos? Weird things happen when you apply qos to link members and I would try without qos in general as I remember it being kinda flakey with MLPPP. After testing MLPPP we decided to not implement it on the network. Are you trying in LNS o direct

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco NCS VxLAN Experience

--- Begin Message --- Hi, > Broadcom levels the playing field amongst traditional and new vendors. > If Cisco and Juniper have the same access to Broadcom chips as do newer > market entrants such as Arista and Arrcus, what are we really paying the > traditional, expensive vendors for when

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco NCS VxLAN Experience

--- Begin Message --- Hi, > > I do have *null* understanding for "we have cisco proprietary protocols that > our customers are actively using (HSRP, EIGRP) but we do not support this on > because we can, buy something else!" (EIGRP on IOS XR > on NCS5k, HSRPv2 with IPv6 on ASR920). >

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 920 Replacement

--- Begin Message --- > The table on software licensing looks like the usual Cisco nightmare, just more > of it. > > ESS-AC-10G-RTU-1 Essentials SW Right-to-Use per 10G > ADV-AC-10G-RTU-1 Advanced SW Right-to-Use per 10G > ESS-10G-SIA-3 Essentials SW Innovation Access per 10G 3 year subscription

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 920 Replacement

--- Begin Message --- Check carefully for EIGRP on the NCS family if you go that way. A lot of them do not support it and AFAIK the NCS540 does not. Brian > -Original Message- > From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of > Muhammad Asif Rao > Sent:

Re: [c-nsp] Experience with Lenovo switching, anyone?

--- Begin Message --- Hi , Mellanox (or should we say Nvidia now?) is overkill for 1G ports, but is interesting and very competitive at high speeds. Here in Milan they are using them at MIX for 100G ports and seem to be happy. Their base software is lacking some features, for example in data

Re: [c-nsp] NAT64 Statistics over SNMP - ASR 1002

--- Begin Message --- HI Chris, not sure what statistics you are looking for but if you are wanting the sessions you should look into high speed logging/bulk logging using netflow https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/ipaddr_nat/configuration

Re: [c-nsp] QoS and groups of subscribers

--- Begin Message --- Hi Mike, > I have a group of subscribers using PPPoE, and I was wondering if > there > would be a way to implement a common QoS policy whereby every member > of this group shares a single virtual 100mbps pipe? The situation I want > to > deal with is oversubscription