Re: [c-nsp] "next-table" Equivalent for IOS XR - Default Route into Global Routing Table

As you found out, XR won't forward the traffic using inter-VRF route leaking if it has to do another recursive lookup in the next VRF. It requires specifying the next-hop/interface or leaking the more specific routes into the VRF. So if you have 0/0 pointing to null0 that's not going to work.

Re: [c-nsp] NCS IOS-XR rant (was:Re: Internet border router recommendations and experiences)

I agree, I mentioned earlier most just want a single image where they load the image, reboot the box if that’s required, and that’s it. Managing application level software patches isn’t something most want to keep track of or maintain. Whle the flexibility is there to do that, it’s not

Re: [c-nsp] NCS IOS-XR rant (was:Re: Internet border router recommendations and experiences)

With XR7 the idea was to mimic how things are done with Linux repos by having a specific RPM repo for the routers and the patches which is managed similar to Linux and that’s how all software is packaged now. Dependencies are resolved automatically, etc. RPMs are installed as atomic

Re: [c-nsp] NCS IOS-XR rant (was:Re: Internet border router recommendations and experiences)

Yes there are some various differences depending on what versions you are using. You can, at least in later versions use install replace with http, at least with GISO. You also do not need the apply command, and you can include “commit” in the replace command so it’s not required after the

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

2023 at 02:29:13PM +0000, Phil Bedard wrote: > XR for a number of years now has had the concept of a ?golden ISO?. It?s a > single image either built by Cisco or customers can build their own that > include the base software and the SMUs in a single image. You just issue a > s

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

SMUs were a good idea, but not really great in practice. Most customers I work with do not want to manage application level patches, just entire images, even in cases where they are just a process restart. XR for a number of years now has had the concept of a “golden ISO”. It’s a single

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

a bit curious if there was something specific in the config or other operations that was a show stopper issue? Thanks, Phil From: Mark Tinka Date: Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 9:58 PM To: Phil Bedard , Brian Turnbow , Gert Doering Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Internet

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

The original question was around an Internet border router with 10G support. We have devices like the 55A2-MOD-SE which is similar to some other vendor devices (somewhat of a reference Broadcom design) which we’ve seen be very popular in border router deployments where you do not need a ton

Re: [c-nsp] 32 x 100G box

As Tom mentioned, There are a number of platforms. There is the somewhat older J+ NCS nodes like the 55A1-36H which is 36x100GE QSFP28. There is the 8000 series which has a number of models that would fit like the 8201-32FH and newer 8201-24H8FH (24x100G, 8x400G). There is also a new NCS

Re: [c-nsp] Best Practices for Transporting Layer-2 Services

Others mentioned EVPN for ELAN/VPLS type services, but it’s not just for multipoint services. EVPN-VPWS is how we see most who do not have an existing Martini T-LDP deploying P2P L2VPN. P2P is going to be transparent to most of what the customer or 3rd party provider is sending. If they

Re: [c-nsp] Large prefix lists/sets on IOS-XR

Hi, Not much different than Junos. Everything in the XR config can be configured using Netconf using either native models or OpenConfig. You can check out https://github.com/YangModels/yang/tree/main/vendor/cisco/xr for supported models by version. Any other questions just let me know.

Re: [c-nsp] C8200/Spitfire/Pacific

Full disclosure as most of you know I work for Cisco.We have many customers at this point running these in production networks including some of the larger carriers worldwide. They are 400G dense devices so the market for them isn’t going to cover a huge amount of providers yet. Just a

Re: [c-nsp] LSR platforms

Full disclosure I work for Cisco. There are a ton of Broadcom based boxes deployed in all roles these days. Certainly quite a few in P/LSR roles. The 55A1-24H, 36H are 100G dense J+ based platforms. There are 10G dense platforms based on the same chips (55A1-48Q). There are also some newer

Re: [c-nsp] Sanity check OSPF/BGP

I've typically seen this happen when there is a covering route causing the next-hop tracking to not work correctly. It happens quite a bit when there is a local null0 route covering the NH. You can use a route-map to specify only OSPF routes are used under the specific AFI. You can also

Re: [c-nsp] SR-TE

This is likely the key. Apart from defining the SR-TE Policy, you have to map traffic to them, it doesn't happen automatically. Today it's done through 1) static routes 2) autoroute announce as mentioned, 3) For traffic using BGP routes using a color BGP community to automatically map

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco N540-ACC-SYS ipv4 routes

ot; wrote: On 17/Jul/20 00:53, Phil Bedard wrote: > Fair enough. Every vendor has gone through their own pain with the older midplane systems in having to swap out chassis multiple times to get to higher speeds. Thankfully with the newer fabric designs we've eliminated most of that

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco N540-ACC-SYS ipv4 routes

On 7/16/20, 4:37 PM, "Mark Tinka" wrote: On 16/Jul/20 20:48, Phil Bedard wrote: > > To be fair there are many many ASR9K systems out there today which have > > been in networks for many year. There is a new generation of cards for > > those com

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco N540-ACC-SYS ipv4 routes

To be fair there are many many ASR9K systems out there today which have been in networks for many year. There is a new generation of cards for those coming out which do not require a chassis swap people will be using for many years to come. CRS-X I would agree doesn't have the longevity of

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco N540-ACC-SYS ipv4 routes

/13/20, 5:25 PM, "Mark Tinka" wrote: On 13/Jul/20 21:51, Phil Bedard wrote: > The initial iteration of the PTX couldn't. It was really just meant as an LSR with relatively low FIB scale, couldn't do Netflow (remember the external server to do it?), etc. That qu

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco N540-ACC-SYS ipv4 routes

The initial iteration of the PTX couldn't. It was really just meant as an LSR with relatively low FIB scale, couldn't do Netflow (remember the external server to do it?), etc. That quickly pivoted to something more capable. Juniper sort of positioned the initial version as a route

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco N540-ACC-SYS ipv4 routes

et support on NCS540? > On Jul 12, 2020, at 1:25 PM, Phil Bedard wrote: > > In XR in general we support restricting routes installed in the FIB using table-policy at various locations, but it's done across all NPUs. This specific feature mixing hi/lo FIB line cards adds

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco N540-ACC-SYS ipv4 routes

In XR in general we support restricting routes installed in the FIB using table-policy at various locations, but it's done across all NPUs. This specific feature mixing hi/lo FIB line cards adds another knob to tag certain routes as "external" so we can determine which prefixes to install on

Re: [c-nsp] Devil's Advocate - Segment Routing, Why?

On 6/17/20, 6:31 PM, "cisco-nsp on behalf of Mark Tinka" wrote: On 17/Jun/20 23:07, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > First of all the "SR = network programmability" is BS, SR = MPLS, any > programmability we've had for MPLS since ever works the same way for SR. I see

Re: [c-nsp] Devil's Advocate - Segment Routing, Why?

I look at the basic SR via IGP extensions like VPLS vs. EVPN. If we had a way to go back in history I'm not sure anyone would have said VPLS was a good idea vs. EVPN. There were reasons back in the day why something like SR wasn't done. The thought of global MPLS labels scared people and

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR IS-IS authentication

There shouldn't be an issue using keychains for these functions, I have XR and XE devices running IS-IS between each other with keychains on both without an issue. One thing to always watch out for is inadvertent spaces after you type in a clear text password. Thanks, Phil On 5/28/20,

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 920 Replacement

The NCS540 line is definitely edge focused although the initial hardware release probably fits more in an aggregation role for most. There are differences in feature or scale but I wouldn't say it's less feature rich, in many cases it has more capabilities. Thanks, Phil On 6/27/19,

Re: [c-nsp] BGP DFZ convergence time - FIB programming

Nicolas covered the RIB speed in the blog as well, and had varying results, but on average about 10s for today's full table. The bottleneck in the operation is usually the advertising router, not the local router populating the RIB. I don't think there was a test where the FIB took more than

Re: [c-nsp] Route Leaking (GRT<-> VRF)

This is regular IOS? Be careful where you are sourcing the pings from, since it's intermittent it could be sourcing them from somewhere you aren't expecting and doesn't have reachability between VRF/Global. Phil On 4/29/18, 6:30 AM, "cisco-nsp on behalf of CiscoNSP List"

Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 7707 as Internet Edge Router?

getting there. The platform isn’t going anywhere. Phil -Original Message- From: Gert Doering <g...@greenie.muc.de> Date: Friday, July 28, 2017 at 03:27 To: Phil Bedard <phil...@gmail.com> Cc: Rick Martin <rick.mar...@arkansas.gov>, "cisco-nsp@puck.

Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 7707 as Internet Edge Router?

Do you require something with redundant RPs? The fixed NCS5001/NCS5501 would probably fit what you need well if you don’t. The chassis based NCS systems are a bit overkill for your needs. The NCS5XXX were mainly pitched to larger providers originally with their own account teams so I don’t

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

How large is your IGP? How many BGP next-hops do you typically have? Are you seeing any other strange behavior like client flaps while convergence is happening? Phil -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp on behalf of Dhamija Amit via cisco-nsp

Re: [c-nsp] Serious hardware clock issue for NCS1000s, NCS5500s, ISR 4000s, ASA 5500s, Nexus 9000s - hardware replacement required.

Not at liberty to say who exactly at this point, but you will see stuff come from other vendors soon, this isn’t isolated to Cisco. The affected series of Intel Atom SoC has fairly widespread use. Phil -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp on behalf

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

If you have an existing network running LDP/6PE for years and aren’t looking to do much else other than support basic MPLS services, there isn’t a whole lot of incentive to move to SPRING. At the end of the day SPRING is just another control-plane and piggybacks onto an existing routing

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

There are implementations of this using eBGP, mainly in datacenters, but you could maybe do the same thing with iBGP, NH manipulation, and RR. There was at least one router vendor I encountered in the past that required a BGP-LU route be resolved using some underlying tunnel type like

Re: [c-nsp] PE "Sprawl" - P/Core Router suggestions.

. At an early point in the pipeline it can do packet replication, which is where mirroring and netflow come into play. Phil -Original Message- From: <adamv0...@netconsultings.com> Date: Friday, December 30, 2016 at 10:55 To: Phil Bedard <phil...@gmail.com>, 'Saku Ytti' <s...

Re: [c-nsp] PE "Sprawl" - P/Core Router suggestions.

Afaik, all the Cisco Jericho/Qumram based cards/fixed boxes use the 16MB on-chip and 4GB of external DRAM. The 4GB is broken up into 1000 byte chunks from what I remember. Phil -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp on behalf of Saku Ytti

Re: [c-nsp] PE "Sprawl" - P/Core Router suggestions.

What kind of protocols are you running on the network? What’s the likelihood of running some user services or more advanced features on the new “core” boxes? Cisco gear the NCS 5501 would probably be my choice, it’s substantially less expensive than the 5502 if you don’t need the 100G

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

, 2016 at 01:10 To: Phil B <phil...@gmail.com>, Adam Vitkovsky <adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk>, Gert Doering <g...@greenie.muc.de>, Phil Mayers <p.may...@imperial.ac.uk> Cc: "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net" <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 -

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

The FPC3 on the PTX5K (shipping shortly) is 3Tbps/slot (30x100GE/slot via 15x100GE PICs). Cisco will have a 12x100GE linecard for the ASR9912/9922 soon as well, the fabric already supports it. The NCS6K hasn’t been given much love for various reasons. You will see copper interconnects

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

Well XR 6.0 is the first linux-based version. The new “install” command for packages is actually a wrapper for yum, so it includes things like dependency verification. How you upgrade the whole OS is still a bit hazy though. They have said it involves using a self-extracting ISO

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - sweet...got one in the lab

Yeah, it's called IOS-XR, has existed for 4-5? years. Phil From: Aaron Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 4:52 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - sweet...got one in the lab wow, check out the interface names at the bottom of the list, yeah the names that start with "H"

Re: [c-nsp] NCS5K?

My guess is you will see something from Cisco similar to the PTX1K in the NCS 55XX series but it will be more expensive than the 500X series. These boxes I believe use the Broadcom Tomahawk chipset and the NCS55XX uses the Jericho. The Jericho can support an external TCAM with more routes but

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9K and bandwidth

It is 220 bidirectional with one RSP, 440 with two. So for instance a 24x10G is only slightly oversubscribed with one RSP to the fabric. The 36x10G is oversubscribed in other ways I believe, meaning the NPU can only do 3 ports linerate out of 4 regardless of the fabric. Phil -Original

Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 9300

We recently found out some of the FEX modules are also not supported yet on the 9372. Things like dual homed FEX is also bot supported yet, but we were aware of that. The 9300 if I'm not mistaken has the additional chip and is slanted towards ACI. Phil -Original Message- From:

Re: [c-nsp] Internet in VRF

If you have the BGP free core already built, I’d definitely do 6PE. We’ve been doing it for many years now with no issues at all. As for RSVP-TE we run that as well, but for definite reasons. We forward different CoS over different LSPs, use it for traffic engineering, use FRR, and need

Re: [c-nsp] Internet in VRF

I think it’s a popular enough option these days in carrier networks that the larger vendors do plan for it somewhat at this point. In the beginning there were issues with how labels are allocated (per-VRF or per-prefix) which leads to lots of potential issues. The ability for the box to look

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco console port to USB

Me too, I have two of them from way back when. Lately though I've been using AirConsole, they have a Bluetooth connection option, or you plug in the AirConsole and connect to it over Wi-Fi. Phil -Original Message- From: Tim Jackson jackson@gmail.com Sent: ‎3/‎3/‎2015 6:03 PM

Re: [c-nsp] bgp scalability C7600

We are connected to a Level3 7600 at one location, when we turned it up a few months ago it took almost 30 minutes to send us a full table. Phil -Original Message- From: Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de Sent: ‎2/‎6/‎2015 1:52 PM To: james list jameslis...@gmail.com Cc:

Re: [c-nsp] bgp scalability C7600

I have no insight into what else that router is doing, they could have 50 other full feed customers on there for all I know. It's an RSP720. Phil On 2/7/15, 16:50, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote: Hi On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 09:00:55AM -0500, Phil Bedard wrote: We are connected

Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 9500

I don't think you have it correct. Each fabric module has 8x40G to each slot in the 9508. With 6 it's 48x40G to each slot. So you could lose one and still be able to support the 36x40G. Phil -Original Message- From: Skeeve Stevens skeeve+cisco...@eintellegonetworks.com Sent:

Re: [c-nsp] ECMP v Link Aggregation ofr MPLS

We use LAG, easier to manage. Hashing these days is usually identical between the two. Phil From: Ivan Sent: 3/13/2014 16:32 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] ECMP v Link Aggregation ofr MPLS So we are crossing the bridge to 10Gbps for some MPLS core links. I am trying to work out

Re: [c-nsp] LDP based CSC VPN - ASR9k/IOS-XR 4.3.4

I'm not sure 4.3.4 supports it, I thought I read it came in a later release? I can't seem to find it in the release notes though... Phil On 3/10/14, 8:43 AM, Arun Kumar narain.a...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I am trying to configure CSC MPLS VPN on IOS-XR 4.3.4 on ASR 9K as PE. Currently the

Re: [c-nsp] Unified MPLS - Discrete area or separate IGP in Access Layer

We are using separate areas, same process, albeit not on Cisco gear but that's probably how I would do it on Cisco as well. Generally we put all the access segments off a single location into a small number of areas and aggregate/restrict advertisements into area 0. Phil On 2/6/14, 9:36 AM,

Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 2232PP FEX Switch Question

So the first issue, and probably the root of it, is you are calling the FEX a switch, and it's not a switch. It doesn't do any local switching itself and the FEX ports do not support running STP, so it really is meant to connect to L3 devices. There is no way to disable BPDUGuard. If the

Re: [c-nsp] [j-nsp] MPLS-TP OAM

That¹s not true. http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/mpls-tp-oam-co nfiguration.html Junos does support using the non-IP-based BFD OAM using the MPLT-TP GAL/GACH. As for providers deploying MPLS-TP, I certainly don't know of any... Phil On 12/4/13, 12:21 PM,

Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 3000 series

The 3K are more generic switches and do not support FEX or Fabricpath if that's what you are using now... They do support vPC but it is not managed as a single entity. The newer 6000 series do support FEX, Fabricpath, etc. And are more similar to the existing 5K. Phil From: Robert Hass Sent:

Re: [c-nsp] Firewall/UTM

With those specs, you'd have to look at the top of the line firewall from each vendor, except for maybe Juniper which has the 5600/5800 both supporting those specs. Cisco has the ASA 5585-X but it doesn't have 17Gbps of VPN throughput... Phil On 11/30/13, 12:13 PM, madu...@gmail.com

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS-TP on CPT platform vs IP/MPLS core on ASR with TE

On 11/27/13, 9:47 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 09:50:16 PM Phil Bedard wrote: Cisco seems to have abandoned the concept of putting the optics on the router, because the density isn't there. That's always been the rub with colored/tunable

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS-TP on CPT platform vs IP/MPLS core on ASR with TE

On 11/26/13, 10:18 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:37:29 AM Gert Doering wrote: If we're talking about the same thing, I think it's a great idea, and the only problem is that vendors charging extra for using it (and thus, many people are not

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS-TP on CPT platform vs IP/MPLS core on ASR with TE

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:37:29 AM Gert Doering wrote: If we're talking about the same thing, I think it's a great idea, and the only problem is that vendors charging extra for using it (and thus, many people are not using it even if their hardware could)... IPoDWDM's issues were less

Re: [c-nsp] shaping 128 mbps - asr9k

There is a limitation with shaping on a child policy on the line cards where the shaping rate on the bottom tier can't be above 128Mbps, as you have found out. I believe if you put both classes in the same parent policy you can get around it. For instance put your UDP shaper above the

Re: [c-nsp] Spanning-tree ports cost Formula

The newer versions of the STP standards (802.1D udpdated and 802.1W/S) have updated path cost values to cover higher speeds. 10 Mb/s 200 100 Mb/s 20 1 Gb/s 2 10 Gb/s 2000 100 Gb/s 200 1 Tb/s 20 10 Tb/s 2 Cisco switches generally need a command documented in this article to enable

Re: [c-nsp] ISP / MPLS POP design

Like Mark mentioned the concept of stateful failure using virtual chassis has been popular but nothing you listed supports doing that. Making L2 terminations redundant is difficult, always has been without doing something exotic. We do the VRRP thing in some instances, use MC-LAG in others. In the

Re: [c-nsp] ISP / MPLS POP design

On Nov 6, 2013, at 1:01 AM, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) oboeh...@cisco.com wrote: IS-IS can scale to a larger number of devices in a single area and overall network. Really depends on how many devices you are talking about. For smaller deployments it usually comes down to who is

Re: [c-nsp] ISP / MPLS POP design

IS-IS can scale to a larger number of devices in a single area and overall network. Really depends on how many devices you are talking about. For smaller deployments it usually comes down to who is supporting the network and what they are more familiar with. So you are backhauling most of your

Re: [c-nsp] FAT PW between 7600 - ASR9K

I would check with Cisco and also maybe try it between two 7600s and sniff the traffic. There were pre-standard implementations which simply used a specific range of labels for things like FAT or entropy labels, so the 7600 may just add a label from a specific range and expects the far end to

Re: [c-nsp] ISP / MPLS POP design

If I was designing it from scratch there isn't much need for the P routers to speak BGP if there are labeled paths to the remote PEs. Why are they VPNv4 RRs? You do not want a full mesh between PEs or what? How many pops are you talking about? Another kind of popular thing to do these

Re: [c-nsp] NSP remarking IP Prec/DSCP

Net Neutrality means everyone gets marked as zero on ingress into the network. If you have a specific contract with the provider maybe things operate differently, but then you start getting into preferential treatment of traffic... No providers preserve incoming markings for normal Internet

Re: [c-nsp] ENNI Termination

So you need to pop the s-VLANs and locally terminate the c-VLAN traffic or am I misunderstanding? Why wouldn't the provider just hand the traffic off with a single VLAN? The newer ASR901 probably supports what you need and is fairly cheap. Otherwise with the ME and other switches you might

Re: [c-nsp] new Cisco's NCS ISP flagship router

It went down when the NPower was announced, it went back up 16% when the NCS was announced. Phil On Sep 30, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: On (2013-09-29 16:27 -0700), Phil Bedard wrote: EZChip's stock went up a bunch the day the NCS was announced. The It went -25

Re: [c-nsp] new Cisco's NCS ISP flagship router

EZChip's stock went up a bunch the day the NCS was announced. The analysts take was the ASR platform will continue to use EZchip and newer cards will use the NP-5 chip. EZchip also issued a press release stating that. Phil From: Saku Ytti Sent: 9/27/2013 3:25 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] new Cisco's NCS ISP flagship router

I think a miss with the box is it comes in a 23 form factor but I guess if you need an NCS 6000 you probably have space for it. The software stuff is pretty cool, but I wonder if the complexity is going to come with bugs in the short term. They framework is very flexible so I'm interested to see

Re: [c-nsp] A9K 40G 100G

Typhoon are the newer cards. They probably work but never tried since its kind of a waste. -- From: Dmitry Kiselev dmi...@dmitry.net Sent: 9/20/2013 3:45 To: Phil Bedard phil...@gmail.com; Jason Lixfeld ja...@lixfeld.ca; cisco-nsp NSP cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] A9K 40G 100G

The 9010 with the non-RSP440 is about 184G/slot using both fabrics.. I am not entirely sure the 100G cards work without the 440... Phil From: Jason Lixfeld Sent: 9/19/2013 23:15 To: cisco-nsp NSP Subject: [c-nsp] A9K 40G 100G I'm wondering if anyone knows off the top of their head what the

Re: [c-nsp] VPLS between ME3600X and Brocade XMR

I'm not well versed on the 3600x but some if the other platforms do not allow using a SVI as an MPLS upstream interface and could explain your forwarding table issue. You would need to use a sub interface instead of a SVI. Which I would advise doing anyways if it is p2p between two devices. Phil

Re: [c-nsp] asr 9922 2 x 100 GIGE Module. Ingress QoS Pre-classification

http://tinyurl.com/n3qoq55 Ingress Queuing is only supported on the 24x10GE module, none of the 100GE or 36x10GE modules (either -SE or -TR) support it. Ingress queueing is not something a lot of hardware supports. The 2x100GE module uses a separate ingress NP and egress NP, but the amount of

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE

On 7/10/13 6:14 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 07:02:56 PM Phil Bedard wrote: In our case we are using separate OSPF areas for the access elements, IS-IS wasn't supported when we started doing the deployments. Depending on scale sometimes an entire

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE

On 7/10/13 4:16 AM, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@swan.sk wrote: the different network islands are tied together using CsC over a common MPLS core. You got me scared for a moment CsC would mean to run a separate OSPF/LDP/BGP-ASN for each area and doing MP-eBGP between ASBRs within each

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE

On 7/9/13 10:10 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 10:43:20 AM Adam Vitkovsky wrote: Are the access rings in a separate area/level or running a separate igp, or how do you scale your backbone IGP please? We kept them in the IS-IS level (i.e., L2-only), as

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE

. The agg nodes will do BGP-LU to LDP translation but the LFIB capacity is fairly small. Requires using something like LDP DOD to really work. The nodes support using an aggregate or default prefix for the LDP IGP route. From: Adam Vitkovsky Sent: 7/8/2013 4:12 To: Phil Bedard; Andrew Miehs; mark.ti

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE

On 7/8/13 11:14 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Monday, July 08, 2013 12:33:36 PM Phil Bedard wrote: XR supports it in the latest revision, didn't know about the 3600 support. I guess this is the C-NSP list. We have thousands of non-Cisco nodes deployed using RSVP-TE

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE

I have been looking over those drafts and like what I see thus far, makes perfect sense. Too bad it didn't exist 4 years ago. :) Phil On 7/8/13 11:31 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: On (2013-07-08 17:14 +0200), Mark Tinka wrote: We, at the time, opted to wait for IP LFA since RSVP-TE in

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE

Not really a valid solution in many cases with fiber rings. When we say CPE those are devices we have absolute control over, the customer generally has their own device. It's just a provider termination point. Whether it is L2 or L3 doesn't really change anything. Phil From: Gordon Smith Sent:

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE

Most of the time these aren't L3 customers it is L2VPN. Like an instance doing cell backhaul where a customer wants two circuits which take diverse paths around a ring. You can do it with G.8032 and different VLANs but its somewhat easier using MPLS along with the benefit of the 50ms protection

Re: [c-nsp] NTP message sent to 224.0.1.1, from interface 'NULL' (0.0.0.0).

NTP broadcast sends the messages using multicast, to 224.0.1.1. See RFC5905. Phil On 7/2/13 6:09 AM, Victor Sudakov v...@mpeks.tomsk.su wrote: Colleagues, Why is a CISCO3945 router sending multicast NTP packets with ttl=31 (!) while I have never configured it to do so? debug ntp packets

Re: [c-nsp] QSFP to SFP+ over 300 meters: Can it be done out of box?

Traditionally most people aren't using those for long reach applications just higher top of rack density, or within the same datacenter. But now switches are starting to come with more and more qsfp+ ports. Good news is optics vendors like Avago, Finisar, etc. are making what you want

Re: [c-nsp] Difference in IP FRR Link vs Per Prefix Option

Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@swan.sk Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Difference in IP FRR Link vs Per Prefix Option To: 'Phil Bedard' phil...@gmail.com, 'Dhamija Amit' amiitdham...@yahoo.com, cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Date: Wednesday, June 5, 2013, 1:14 PM The presentation is really good thanks Phil, Right so

Re: [c-nsp] Difference in IP FRR Link vs Per Prefix Option

Here is a good document with regards to Cisco's implementation: http://www.cisco.com/web/SK/expo2011/pdfs/IP_Fast_reroute_PeterPsenk.pdf Per the way LFAs are calculated in the RFC per-link doesn't guarantee node protection but depending on the topology it can provide it. However a vendor may

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE

There are a number of solutions like using BGP labeled unicast, downstream on demand labels, or service level solutions like multi segment pseudowires. We have thousands of MPLS CPEs deployed at this point. Those endpoints are all L2 pseudowires, which are end to end or terminate into virtual L3

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9K 0 packet loss

I've done a bit of testing and it's actually pretty good and I have seen zero packet loss, and never greater than 10ms for general IP/MPLS traffic. It's a gross simplification but the RSPs work the way the ALU SR routers have for years where the fabrics are active/active always receiving traffic

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9K 0 packet loss

until either you replace the card or drop traffic rate. For some reason (space/cost ?) in order to be Line Rate you need dual RSP! Themis -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp- boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Phil Bedard Sent: Monday

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR SNMP interface packets per second OID.

I believe those OIDs are from an old Cisco vendor specific MIB which IOS XR doesn't support. There isn't a specific standard oid for PPS, you would need to poll the standard packet counter OID and use some external program to calculate the PPS based on the polling interval. Phil From: Lee Starnes

Re: [c-nsp] IP LFA in ring topology

I don't know about support in some newer releases but the old auto-tunnel one hop would just build tunnels to adjacent nodes and then had the ability to create bypasses. So you got the benefits of RSVP-TE local protection but the route followed the IGP and you didn't really have any TE. If you

Re: [c-nsp] LACP hello rate negotiation

The local config determines the remote transmit interval but not all devices support fast PDUs. They can be mismatched. This is from the spec not Ciscos implementation persay. Phil On Oct 29, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Chuck Church chuckchu...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone, Been

Re: [c-nsp] Dual Planar Core Design

We have looked at a dual plane design for both reliability and scalability. In some instances the design can result in less hardware than your typical ring design if traffic can be balanced well enough across multiples planes. The other benefit is being able to extend a network beyond two

Re: [c-nsp] traceroute shows mpls labels...how?

There are ICMP extensions to carry MPLS label stack information but the trace route application needs to support it. The windows client doesn't. Phil Sent from my iPad On Aug 22, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Aaron aar...@gvtc.com wrote: Do you all know how this works? How is traceroute able to

Re: [c-nsp] traceroute shows mpls labels...how?

: Chris Evans [mailto:chrisccnpsp...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 3:03 PM To: Phil Bedard Cc: lt,cisco-nsp@puck.nether.netgt,; Aaron Subject: Re: [c-nsp] traceroute shows mpls labels...how? Also this depends on vendor too. IIRC junos uses udp for its trace routing and ios

Re: [c-nsp] traceroute shows mpls labels...how?

that if you did traceroute from a cisco box going over a juniper network the labels wouldn't show and vice versa. You brought up something I was 100% suee about a few years ago but those brain cells are gone. On Aug 22, 2012 2:58 PM, Phil Bedard phil...@gmail.com wrote: There are ICMP

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9K bundle-id 123 mode on

The ports belonging to a mLACP bundle have to be running LACP. The non-forwarding ASR9K uses LACP to keep the peer port in a standby state. Putting the port in loopback would mean it would have to run LACP with itself somehow, not sure if that's going to work... You could probably use a loopback

Re: [c-nsp] 6VPE deployment Issue (Core router need configure IPv6 address or not?)

Both. Phil On Aug 6, 2012, at 2:03 AM, Xu Hu jstuxuhu0...@gmail.com wrote: For the TTL propagate, is it feature suit for both IPv4 and IPv6, or just be suitable for IPv6? My understanding is suit for both. 2012/8/3 Phil Bedard phil...@gmail.com You can tell the ingress PE to not copy

  1   2   3   >