Hi Omar,
Wouldn't all the packets be considered part of the same flow by any chance?
adam
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of omar parihuana
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 2:28 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Right, finding a good business case is the catch
But what's great on mpls is that you'll never hit the ceiling on number of
routes carried in control plane or number of nodes in the network other than
the budged, because no single node has to have a full routing awareness of the
whole network
I guess you can ask: Why do we run mpls anyway or even plan on expanding it all
the way to the access layer right?
I thought the answer is obvious, TE capabilities, fast failover or common
carrier infrastructure that scales well
And by common I mean infrastructure that supports all the
Groups or configuring end nodes to prefer dynamic RPs or
combination of both
adam
From: Андрей Андреев [mailto:a.andr...@teztour.com]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:44 AM
To: Vitkovsky, Adam
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] RP Migration option
Hi,
You mentioned you have a big m-cast network that's why I would recommend using
several anycast RPs on routers with close proximity to receivers -this way each
RP would serve only a subset of receivers (or two RPs in one locality can split
the groups they serve)
In order to achieve this
Just enable the ip ospf demand-circuit cmd under the dial backup interfaces
The LSAs are than exchanged only once with DNA bit set, periodic refresh (30
min by default) is suppressed and LSAs are sent only when there's topology
change -therefore the remote site should be conf at least as stub
I guess that would go under the tunnel template used for auto-tunnels
adam
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of ??
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 10:48 AM
To: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)
Cc:
I'm sorry the auto template is only used in ios
In XR you can specify the autoroute announce under attribute set
And than use that with the group
adam
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of ??
Sent:
In XR you’ll configure it the same - “path-option 1 dynamic” or “path-option 1
explicit name” under the tunnel-te interface
adam
From: 许虎 [mailto:jstuxuhu0...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:58 AM
To: Vitkovsky, Adam
Cc: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer
[mailto:jstuxuhu0...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:00 PM
To: Vitkovsky, Adam
Cc: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer); cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS TE conver from IOS to IOS-XR
I know, but my situation is auto-tunnel mesh.
Thanks and regards,
Xu Hu
On 23 Feb, 2012
Yes, now that I think about it, it might be helpful to have a knob to instruct
a group of tunnels to use or exclude a particular hop
adam
-Original Message-
From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) [mailto:oboeh...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:00 PM
To: Vitkovsky, Adam
Reminds me on old days when acls didn't have numbered lines
During the migrations we had to maintain production and temp acl and change the
distribute statements to use temp acl before deleting the production acl and
pasting an updated version of it than put the production one back in and
You can use static routes for static inter-vrf routing
For dynamic inter-vrf redistribution of prefixes you need MP-BGP
adam
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Covalciuc Piotr
Sent: Friday, February 03,
Hi
Question #1:
Yes you can use verbatim keyword in the path option
-router will attempt to build the tunnel without checking the te-lsdb
Question #2
-before the tunnel is build, router will check the te-lsdb to see whether the
path specified (explicit or dynamic) has sufficient parameters for
session (so that I have p-core igp
clear of other AS loopbacks)
adam
-Original Message-
From: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@greenie.muc.de]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:37 PM
To: Vitkovsky, Adam
Cc: 'cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net'
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] inter-as mp-bgp with ttl-security issue
I just ran across this issue again so I decided to find some reasonable
explanation if there's one
I've just set up a vpnv4 session between two inter-as route-reflectors (7200s
runing 12.2(33)SRE4)
Since it's MP-eBGP session I either can use ebgp-multihop or ttl-security
to manipulate the ttl
Show run should display the configuration for the card that was removed and all
it's references in the config
It will jut list the interfaces as interface preconfigure gig0/2/3/4
-same as when you pre-configure interfaces for a line-card that is not yet
inserted into the box or you'd like to
Pre-configuration is possible with XR as well
adam
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Roesen
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 1:15 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] How to see
, December 28, 2011 1:49 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] How to see interface configuration after card failure on
ASR9K
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 01:37:34PM +0100, Vitkovsky, Adam wrote:
Pre-configuration is possible with XR as well
So you can preconfigure interfaces
Hi
In this case I'd be careful with these features
Even though the advantage is that you won't loose the label mappings from the
particular neighbor in case the direct link fails as the ldp hellos would be
exchanged between the loopbacks and can be routed around the failed link same
as the tcp
Hi,
So the section of the core you have issues with is like a triangle between the
3 7200s right? -now are the 7200's connected with GigE back-to-back or via
switch ? -and how is the AS1002F connected to this setup please? -is it
connected to BB1 and BB2 to replace BB3?
You said you ran a
Hi,
Now I'm not sure whether you should push 2 or just 1 -or you can use the last
one
interface Gi1/0/0
description TO-3750G
service instance 123 ethernet
description Customer VLAN 123
encapsulation dot1q 123
rewrite ingress tag push dot1q 1248 symmetric
or
rewrite ingress tag push
adam
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Vitkovsky, Adam
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 1:35 PM
To: Tord Førland; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] VLAN retag on Cisco 7600 + ES
Hi,
Now I'm
Same as in Jonos use the aggregate cmd:
2.router bgp as-number
3.address-family { ipv4 | ipv6 } unicast
4.aggregate-address address/mask-length [ as-set ] [ as-confed-set ] [
summary-only ] [ route-policy route-policy-name ]
The as-set keyword generates autonomous system set
statement
with as-set appended.
Any other thoughts?
Nick
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Nick Ryce
Sent: 24 November 2011 12:54
To: Vitkovsky, Adam; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS XR BGP
Hi there,
I'd like to ask how to configure the inter-as-te on XR
I've found that XR uses Path Computation Element rather than passive interface
flooding that is used in IOS
ASBR-1:
configure
mpls traffic-eng
interface pos 0/6/0/0
pce address ipv4 192.168.25.66 is this
Interesting question
If CE1 advertises a prefix to mpls via PE1
Than on PE2 during redistribution of mp-bgp to ospf in vrf context the down bit
is set in the header of LSA3 and external route tag on LSA5 encoded as the
mp-bgp as# by default or according to the cmd: domain-tag tag
Now ospf
Hi
The suppression won't fix this behavior but will reduce the number of prefixes
ospf needs to carry to roughly 200 -thus enabling you to use a single area 0
I'd recommend not to use multiple areas within the same AS (or confed
member-as) as there are mpls features which needs some tweaking
Hi,
I somehow failed to find some decent documentation on how does the Provider
Backbone bridges work
Can you please point me to some documentation or books please?
I'm mostly interested in how is the mac routing accomplished
Also I'd be interested to see how may of you are actually using it in
Hi
Could the other 7600 possibly have the same cluster id as the one that you are
looking at?
-just a thought
adam
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of ar
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 9:32 AM
To:
Hi,
By default the MED comparison only occurs in the first (the neighboring) AS is
the same in the two paths -which is not your case
Since these are eBGP routes the next tie breaker is:
Prefer the path that was received first (the oldest one)
IOS always displays the routes the way that the
Try to replace the protect 1 with 2 and use the priorities you've outlined
Though be aware that the failover will be slower
as the second path is not pre-established and would only be used after the
first path fails and attempt to re-establish the first path will fail
interface Tunnel12
Suggested Cisco Press titles for written and lab exams v3.0
MPLS Fundamentals (Luc De Ghein, ISBN-10: 1-58705-197-4 ,ISBN-13:
978-1-58705-197-5)
MPLS and Next-Generation Networks: Foundations for NGN and Enterprise
Virtualization (Azhar Sayeed, Monique J. Morrow, ISBN-10: 1-58720-120-8,
Speaking of CRSes :) have anyone seen the XR compiled for AIX somewhere on the
net?
adam
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Tim Franklin
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:01 AM
To:
Hi,
So is junos and ios really coded to carve up a separate FIB tables each
with it's own table preamble and stuff + adjacency table for each vrf?
As I believe it's possible to have a common FIB with some sort of a marker
asociated with each table entry -describing the vrf participation
Than
What I'm not sure though it whether it reflects the TOS into top-most label or
all the labels in the stack by default -equivalence of the set mpls imposition
cmd
If it does the top-most only by default -than you'd need to carry the top-most
label markings form inbound do outbound interface on
Hi there,
I'm a bit confused with this one
Is anyone using this in the production network please? I'd like to understand
in which scenarios these p2mp te-tunnels are being used
Was this only meant for m-cast carried in the Global table?
I see how mldp can supersede the GRE as well as the default
Speaking of pipe modes :)
I also failed to use the pipe mode with 12.2.33 SR codes
As I was not able to use the qos-groups to keep track of the EXP value on the
egress PE
So on 7200s I pretty much got stuck with a short pipe mode and set mpls-exp
imposition at the ingress PE
adam
From: ar [mailto:ar_...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 2:40 PM
To: Vitkovsky, Adam
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 7200 DSCP-to-EXP Mapping
I believe as the packet travels the MPLS domain, same EXP bits are applied as
they swap top labels..this means I
Yes please I was able to use the qos-groups with the 15. code
adam
-Original Message-
From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) [mailto:oboeh...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 2:34 PM
To: Vitkovsky, Adam; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] 7200 DSCP-to-EXP Mapping
Adam
Well you can always pay some extra $$$ for the 1+1 APS to improve the
convergence times on the long-haul systems
But still if the first aplifier on the TX path fails you'd still have to wait
some time till the blackout reaches the RX site at the oter end of Pacific
Than you'd just need to relay
Right the default route would work nicely with bgp free core and no IGP on the
Intra-AS-RRs
But it won't work for Inter-AS-RRs
Because you don't wan the local AS IGP to be polluted with the remote ASNs
PEs and Inter-AS-RRs loopbacks so you rather want to carry those in
bgp-afi-ipv4 + labels
In
: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 2:15 PM
To: Vitkovsky, Adam
Cc: mti...@globaltransit.net; Mack McBride; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR opinions..
Hi Adam,
The discussion is about control plane RRs.
Therefor in control plane RRs you do not need to have any LSP on those
nor populate
To: Vitkovsky, Adam
Cc: mti...@globaltransit.net; Mack McBride; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR opinions..
Hello Adam,
Please see inline ...
Hi Robert,
Yes please I was referring to pure control plane RRs and bgp-free
core
For Intra-AS-RRs to create sessions with PEs
Hi Robert,
I see, sorry bout that
Now I got your point :)
And you're right it's always better to keep thinks as simple as possible
when/where we can
adam
-Original Message-
From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:03 PM
To: Vitkovsky, Adam
Cc
I was just checking the Cisco IOS Multiprotocol Label Switching Configuration
Guide, Release 15.0M.pdf
For the IETF standards based DS-TE -and kept reading further about the
Tunneling modes and that's where it got interesting
They are referring to Pipe mode as QOS Tunnel that goes form CE to CE
Right that's how I understood it as well
It's just that document proposing the rather unusual way :)
adam
-Original Message-
From: Arie Vayner (avayner) [mailto:avay...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 2:36 PM
To: Vitkovsky, Adam; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp
Hi Scott,
Looks like you are looking for this one:
BGP Design and Implementation
Randy Zhang, CCIE No. 5659
Micah Bartell, CCIE No. 5069
Specifically: Chapter 3 Tuning BGP Performance
adam
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
If your MPLS dies, your v6 dies.
With a proper design if MPLS dies -customers should not even notice :) (MPLS-TE
and FRR)
adam
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mathieu Paonessa
Sent: Wednesday, August
Hi there,
I was configuring the rr-groups in the lab the other day and noticed that the
routes are still being advertised from PEs towards the RRs where they where
blocked as defined in the policy
But the route-target filters should have been passed down to PEs via the ORF
type-3 update -to
...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jared Gillis
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 11:35 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] How to effect a totally stubby area in IS-IS
On 06/24/2011 12:05 AM, Vitkovsky, Adam wrote:
Hi there,
I believe what you are looking
Hi there,
I believe what you are looking for is the isis multi-area feature:
=
Router in the core:
router isis
net 49....0001.00
net 49....0001.00
is-type level-2-only
log-adjacency-changes
-Original Message-
From: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@greenie.muc.de]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 9:14 AM
To: Vitkovsky, Adam
Cc: vince anton; cisco-nsp
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP peer/customer routes
Hi,
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 03:17:11PM +0200, Vitkovsky, Adam wrote:
I believe the new customer
To me this appears as possible peering link abusing scenario
Where you can abuse the peering link and your peer's core-links and direct all
your customers to access AS5 via the peering link and AS11 core-links :)
But jokes aside
Because there's no need to learn prefixes of your customer over the
That makes sense as ISIS p2p adjacency is initialized by rx of a ISHs through
the ES-IS protocol followed by the exchange of the IIH
I was trying to figure out the mac layer mechanism difference between the p2p
and lan and your post helped me to fill in the gaps
Thanks a bunch Olga
adam
Right
I believe protecting for one element failure at a time is just enough
adam
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 6:00 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Cc: Gert
I was thinking maybe it has something to do with the propagation of L2
broadcasts but it appears that the ISIS-all-level-1-ISs and
ISIS-all-level-2-ISs are used regardless of whether the circuit is configured
as p2p or left as b-cast
The two way communication is formed whe you se your own ID
Nick is right
Confederations will help you to scale the IGP
One IGP per Confederation -no redistribution of routes between confederations
If you need to redistribute bgp next-hops between confederations (to allow
proper inter-confed routing in mpls environments)
Carry those in BGP-ipv4-afi
Why do you need to advertise multicast routes over BGP?
It's for RPF to work.
I'm not sure now but wouldn't the rpf failover to unicast safi if the route
can't be find in the m-cast safi?
adam
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
59 matches
Mail list logo
