Re: [c-nsp] ASR9K IPv6 Scaling limit

2016-09-15 Thread brad dreisbach
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 03:17:51PM -0500, Chris Evans wrote: Sorry, guess I wasn't clear.. I mean IPv6 neighbors as in layer 2 clients.. Not IPv6 routing neighbors. that i do not know, sorry. On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:14 PM, brad dreisbach <br...@ntt.net> wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9K IPv6 Scaling limit

2016-09-15 Thread brad dreisbach
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 02:57:37PM -0500, Chris Evans wrote: Does anyone know the maximum amount of IPv6 neighbors an ASR9K platform (don't care which modules) can support? Have a requirement to support in upwards 200K ipv6 neighbors for a centralized WLAN deployment at a large university. 200K

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-15 Thread brad dreisbach
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:10:53AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: James Bensley wrote: Or if you are erasing and installing from fresh on the new version, then the box is down for pretty much the whole 2 hours. turboboot is not necessarily a bad idea if you're doing jumps from one major version

Re: [c-nsp] "show rpl unused" bug?

2016-05-16 Thread brad dreisbach
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 06:20:13PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote: We have encountered a bug on an ASR9010 running IOS-XR v5.1.3 where "show rpl unused" results in a few hits like these: The following as-path-sets are UNUSED -- aspath_191_p1_permit The

Re: [c-nsp] IOS XR BGP default route - prepending AS

2016-04-20 Thread brad dreisbach
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 01:50:44AM -0500, Brian Knight wrote: At $DAYJOB we use MPLS VPNs from other carriers to provide Internet access to customers connected to these VPNs. There is always a primary path for outbound access, plus one or more backup paths. I am trying to configure a backup

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR and interface discards (input)

2015-05-15 Thread brad dreisbach
On May 14, 2015, at 21:04, Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote: We have an ASR 9010 running IOS-XR v 5.1.3. We see a high level of input discards: TenGigE0/1/1/7 is up, line protocol is up Interface state transitions: 25 Layer 1 Transport Mode is WAN MTU 9028 bytes, BW

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR 5.1.2

2014-12-22 Thread brad dreisbach
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 03:56:00PM +0700, Henry Sarumpaet wrote: Hi all, would like to know anyone running 5.1.2 that notice this log : sysdb_mc[426]: SYSDB-CONN-COUNT 'sysdb_mc' over threshold (count 1500, nid 0x1), spawned debug script. Copy files

Re: [c-nsp] I need to limit BW ASR9K

2014-07-02 Thread brad dreisbach
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 08:46:11AM -0600, Scott Miller wrote: When you do a show bundle-ether 2 does the output say both members are in an active state? RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:IOS-XR-2#show int bundle-ether 2 .. .. No. of members in this bundle: 2 GigabitEthernet0/0/0/1 Full-duplex

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9K interface counters

2014-06-06 Thread brad dreisbach
On Jun 6, 2014, at 0:34, Nam NGUYEN nam...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Does anyone using ASR 9010 IOS-XR 4.3.0 encounter following issue with A9K-40GE-L line cards? The Rx packets counter of interface Gi0/x/0/5 is always 0. Example output: RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:ASR9K-1#sh int gi0/1/0/5 | i

Re: [c-nsp] IOS XR SFP DOM in SNMP

2014-05-28 Thread brad dreisbach
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:27:51AM +0400, gu...@golas.ru wrote: Hello all, I want pay you attention on monitoring via SNMP not only for ASR9001. On ASR9006 also very strange situation. This is my graph for ASR9006 on IOS XR 4.x and 5.x release. http://s28.postimg.org/cze9fz1il/txrx.png The

Re: [c-nsp] PWHE vs BVI on Bridge Domain - l2vpn ios xr

2013-06-06 Thread brad dreisbach
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 06:24:23PM -0400, Luis Anzola wrote: Hi Aaron, Take a look on the PWHE and BVI interface capabilities in terms of feature set (qos, sec, routing, etc) and you will probably find the answer to your question, e.g. QoS is not supported on BVI interfaces. QoS on PWHE

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9k Too Frequent Update on Rancid

2013-05-22 Thread brad dreisbach
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 04:23:01PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: On 22/05/2013 15:45, Jared Mauch wrote: Cisco doesn't do any testing with RANCID and summarily rejects any reports related to this problem, requiring you to either report it to the RANCID maintainers to pray that Cisco will