Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

Hi Adam, On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:55 PM, wrote: > Regarding the QOS sorry my bad wasn't specific enough, I didn't mean link > congestion I mean TRIO chip overload (BW or PPS wise). Apparently this is something you are regularly having problems with, otherwise

Re: [c-nsp] iBGP as MPLS labeling protocol

Hi Adam, On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:35 AM, wrote: > And this is the tricky part cause you might run into bugs with next-hop-self > on iBGP session in combination with RFC3107 (no one tests this). why do you think this is an issue? Or why is it any different from

Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 vlan translation (swap)

rior to 3.16 no translations > were supported. > > > Vinod Kumar Balasubramanyam > ENGINEER.TECHNICAL MARKETING > > vinba...@cisco.com > > CCIE - 25703 > > www.cisco.com <http://www.cisco.com/> > > > > > > On 10/7/15, 4:59 PM, "cisco-nsp on behal

[c-nsp] ASR920 vlan translation (swap)

Hi all, does anyone know if the ASR920 supports (or will support) the 'rewrite ingress tag translate' command on an EVC ? (e.g. the equivalent of 'input/output-vlan-map swap' on Juniper). The first URL [1] seems to indicate it is supported, the second one [2] states that translate operations are

Re: [c-nsp] Nightmare for load balancing of L2VPN traffic on CRS (traffic from ME3600)

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou via cisco-nsp cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net wrote: Just out of curiosity, is it capable of looking for IP L4 fields into a PW carrying double-tagged PPPoE packets? IIRC, Trio can look upto 256 bytes deep, so i think h/w is capable of doing

Re: [c-nsp] Nightmare for load balancing of L2VPN traffic on CRS (traffic from ME3600)

right, both trio and asr9k can do lag/ecmp balancing based on payload inspection to some degree, but it's complicated and hacky. getting offtopic, but wondering what you mean with complicated and hacky about the load balancing algo on Trio? Trio hash includes; - upto 5 labels - ipv4/v6 payload

Re: [c-nsp] BITS interface on ME-3600X

Hi, On Thursday, June 20, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Martin T wrote: In which scenario would somebody want to use ME-3600X for providing this clock signal? In addition, why would one want to receive E1/T1 timing signal on an Ethernet switch? the switch needs a reference clock source to provide SyncE

Re: [c-nsp] Traffic shaping does not work (and is not supported) on Port-Channel interfaces on Software based routers

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Gert Doering wrote: (Now what I'm not sure is what the piss-of-customers-BU is competing with, seeems I don't understand the grand master plan yet) JTAC? :P --Daniel. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list

Re: [c-nsp] VPLS and BPDU

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: So would your interpretation of VLAN based options be, that tunneling means explicitly frames which have STP DMAC during transit? If I've changed the STP DMAC for EVP-LAN transit, I'm not sending STP DMAC and I'm not violating the

Re: [c-nsp] VPLS and BPDU

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: I want to tunnel BPDU over the VPLS network, as if my VPLS is stupid hub. But as MEF does not allow this, it must silly idea. And I'm pretty sure my customers expect to see BPDU pass the network transparently. I could, even if my

Re: [c-nsp] VPLS and BPDU

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: On (2012-06-13 10:34 +0200), Daniel Verlouw wrote: The URL I linked, which clarifies BPDU handling, section 8.1.3 'L2CP Requirements for Ethernet Private LAN (EP-LAN) Service' says 'Must Peer on all UNIs or Discard on all UNIs

Re: [c-nsp] 15.0(1)SY: IPv6 BGP neighbours remain idle

Hi, On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:10, Matti Saarinen mjsaa...@cc.helsinki.fi wrote: nbr global [...] Active open failed - route to peer is invalid I can ping the neighbour address from the router. Route and CEF tables agree on where the peer is. What am I missing here? Is there some specific

Re: [c-nsp] GRE tunnel to do span vlan across two datacenters?

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 19:48, Jason Lixfeld ja...@lixfeld.ca wrote:  I guess they killed the ME-3800. sure? Still on the website; http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10965/index.html Nice boxes, but wish they put XFPs in it though instead of SFP+... --Daniel.

Re: [c-nsp] GRE tunnel to do span vlan across two datacenters?

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 22:03, Jason Lixfeld ja...@lixfeld.ca wrote: Not sure about the SFP/XFP thing tho.  Why would you want an XFP? I said SFP+, not SFP. XFP mainly for 10GE DWDM/longhaul uplinks. Afaik the big vendors only supply uncolored 40km (-ER) SFP+ modules. I hear some Chinese vendors

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6 xDSL deployments and DHCP-PD

Hi, On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 16:33 +, n00d...@nix-jutsu.net wrote: Currently it seems to me that the DHCP implentation needs some why of being tied to connection state such that if the line drops upon re-auth the CPE will make a DHCP request. IOS doesn't renew its lease upon re-connect.

[c-nsp] Cat6500 ipv6 nd raguard feature

(apologies for duplicates, thought this might be interesting for folks on both lists): Hi, In case anyone is looking into deploying the 'ipv6 nd raguard' feature introduced in SXI4 on Cat6.5k: I suggest you don't (for now, at least). We found an issue with it causing it to intermittently drop

Re: [c-nsp] BFD and IPv6 on 6500?

Hi, On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 17:52 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: (NB: what about BFD for ISIS - how will that behave in a dual-stack environment? The feature is called IS-IS support for BFD over IPv4, but I assume that an IPv4-BFD-triggered outage will kill the whole IS-IS adjacency, thus taking

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6 - Frame-Interface-Id attribute (static addressing for PPP sessions)

Hi, But the CPE still bases its address to its own interface-id C800:0FFF:FE80:0008 works for me in a quick lab test (877 with 12.4T): (note we run the PPP interface unnumbered and use DHCPv6-PD only, so no public IP on the dialer interface) before: CPE#sh ipv6 interface dialer 1 Dialer1 is

Re: [c-nsp] RADIUS-assigned IPv6 inside VRF

On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 14:46 +0200, Daniel Verlouw wrote: This is all on c7200-advipservicesk9-mz.124-24.T3.bin. Any clue appreciated. to answer my own question: this seems to work well on SRD4. --Daniel. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp

[c-nsp] per-VRF AAA templates and multiprotocol VRFs

Hi list, I'm trying to set up per-VRF AAA with remote templates to assign a customer to a multiprotocol VRF (IPv4 + IPv6). IPv4-only VRFs defined using the 'ip vrf vrf name' stanza work fine this way, however multiprotocol VRFs defined using the newer 'vrf definition vrfname' syntax fail with a

Re: [c-nsp] IPV6 in general was Re: Large networks

On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 00:07 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: HSRP with IPv6 is there on IOS, VRRP with IPv6 is there on JunOS and (as far as I understand) coming soon to IOS. yep, works like a charm on Junos, same sub-second failover as on VRRP for v4. dan...@jun1. show vrrp interface

Re: [c-nsp] IPV6 in general was Re: Large networks

On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 21:23 +0100, Alexander Clouter wrote: Some of us would disagree rather strongly with one or more of those points. For instance, for us DHCPv6 is a hard requirement. Why the hard requirement? DHCPv6 prefix delegation. And DNS assignment. And a bunch of other

Re: [c-nsp] IPV6 in general was Re: Large networks

On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 11:20 +0100, Phil Mayers wrote: I don't understand; all link-local IPs are fe80::/64 link local unicast range is FE80::/10 --Daniel. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] IPV6 in general was Re: Large networks

On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 12:51 +0200, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote: Link-local IP's are fe80::/10, so I planned to use fe80::/16 in my network just by replacing first 16 bits of our public IP's. Can anyone say whether this is bad or wrong idea? :) VRRPv6 (on Junos at least) requires you to

Re: [c-nsp] IPV6 in general was Re: Large networks

On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 14:13 +0200, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote: Why did they make v6 so complicated? What is wrong with public IP's on vrrp/hsrp? VRRPv6 -does- use global unicast addresses, so you can just tell your clients to point to the global unicast address. --Daniel.

Re: [c-nsp] IPV6 in general was Re: Large networks

On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 14:40 +0200, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote: VRRPv6 -does- use global unicast addresses, so you can just tell your clients to point to the global unicast address. Could you please point me a cisco.com webpage confirming that? Cisco doesn't support VRRPv6 yet afaik (?). For

Re: [c-nsp] IPV6 in general was Re: Large networks

On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 14:45 +0200, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote: You cannot have the same link-local IP's on different ifaces, can you? sure you can, that's what link-local is for. dan...@jun1. show interfaces | match fe80::2$ | count Count: 16 lines --Daniel.

Re: [c-nsp] IPv6 experience on DSBU switches

On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 14:09 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: OTOH - Cisco has working prototypes of SeND, while no other (!) operating system out there supports it. OT: JUNOS implements SEND as well, from 9.3 onwards. I've not seen decent support in any host OS so far. --Daniel.

Re: [c-nsp] IPV6 in general was Re: Large networks

On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:18 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: With IPv6 you can get rid of DHCP, forget VPN's, forget DDNS, forget HSRP, and most importantly you no longer need NATs that understand every protocol that runs through it and so remove a possible single point of failure. Some of us

[c-nsp] per interface ARP policing (6500)

Hi, my google-fu is not much of help on this one: 6509VE(config)#mls qos protocol arp police 32k This overrides the per interface ARP policing Does anyone know where to find the default settings for this per interface ARP policer ? And are these sufficient to protect against ARP attacks? sh

Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS route separation/filtering

On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 15:02 -0700, Jared Gillis wrote: Hm, interesting though. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to pan out in the lab. The LSPs don't seem to get flooded, but the routes do get passed through Router A to all the stub routers, regardless of how I set up the mesh-groups. right.

Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS route separation/filtering

On Aug 5, 2009, at 9:57 PM, Jared Gillis wrote: Basically I'm trying to replicate the concept of an OSPF totally-stubby-not-so-stubby-area in IS-IS, and I'm starting to question whether it can be done. My network design is fairly flexible at this point (the only requirements are that it run

Re: [c-nsp] EAPS frames

On Apr 2, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Richard Morrell wrote: A customer would like to use an untagged VLAN across the ISL link on the two 3560s and would like the link to be able to forward EAPS frames. Will this work? Do it require any config to enable it? you will need to use Q-in-Q tunnels as