FAHAD ALI KHAN mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Friday, March
28, 2008 6:45 AM:
Now im introducing Cisco products as PE only, to offer MPLS VPN
services to Broadband clients...everything with cisco is going
goodbut this seems to be little bit scalability issue in our
caseif we have
Dear Oli
Let me clear my scenarioSince my Core Bw is not symetrical...i need to
do TE and force some Traffic to go against IGP rules. Current Juniper based
RSVP tunnels doing things good...and i can forced VPN traffic to TE tunnel
by creating policy filter (route map) by just matching VPN RT
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 05:00:57PM -0700, bill fumerola wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 04:39:24PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
Isn't Cisco doing away with all the routers based off the FPGA code?
NSE-100, 7301, NSE-1 *very* fast when the packets can be handled in
PXF, not so
There seems to be some confusion between 7301 and 7304.
Cisco has never known what to call the 1RU 7200 -- 7401, 7301, 7201;
given their own confusion, its only to be expected elsewhere. I guess
the only reprieve is there won't ever be another one.
7304 (either NSE or NPE) has been on its
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 04:39:24PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
Isn't Cisco doing away with all the routers based off the FPGA code?
NSE-100, 7301, NSE-1 *very* fast when the packets can be handled in
PXF, not so good when they can't.
i'd be interested in any documentation or
FAHAD ALI KHAN mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thursday, March
20, 2008 6:04 AM:
Oli
autoroute announce will send all the traffic (IGP + VPN) towards
tunnel, where as i dont want to send IGP traffic but only VPN
traffic.
Is there any way.well u say static...managment of static
Here is the working configuration when i disable LDP from Juniper core
interfaces (fe-0/0/0 fe-0/0/1)...MPLS VPNs sites get disconnected
C10K#sh run
ip vrf vpn1
description Test VPN 1
rd 1241:100
route-target export 1241:100
route-target import 1241:100
!
mpls traffic-eng tunnels
mpls
Well, you are not telling the headend (10K or 7200) what to forward down
the tunnel. Without any tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce or
static routes or forwarding-adjacency, no traffic will be sent over the
tunnel, so the IGP path towards the BGP next-hop will still point to
your outgoing
Oli
*autoroute announce* will send all the traffic (IGP + VPN) towards tunnel,
where as i dont want to send IGP traffic but only VPN traffic.
Is there any way.well u say static...managment of static will b a great
hurdle in routing of 1000s of VPNs routes...
Is there any solution, to this
Hi,
I've never ran any form of MPLS without LDP on the interface, but if
you're using RSVP-TE, LDP on the physical interfaces should not be
needed. Can you show your working and your not-working config?
The decision which path (LDP or RSVP-TE signalled path) is taken by the
headend depends on
Another option would be to get something that does OC3 ports (or bigger)
and lets you map out DS1s to subinterfaces. Not sure what Cisco cards
would be appropriate. Something like an Adtran opti system, and
appropriate cisco card, you could run an OC3/12/48 into your Cisco. I'm
sure Adtran
On Monday 17 March 2008, FAHAD ALI KHAN wrote:
Guys
Hello.
Im stuck in configuring MPLS L3VPN in Cisco + juniper in
my test lab environment.
As Oli has suggested, a copy of your configurations on both
IOS and JunOS would help.
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
10008 for us has been a typical cisco platform. Get on the right code
and it's stable. I'm assuming by 8 port channelized card you mean two HH
4 port cards? Just note that AToM isn't supported on that card, only the
6 port, choc12, and 24 port T1 card per the website. Haven't actually
tested in
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008, Joseph Jackson wrote:
Do you get wire speed out of those GigE ports? I remember reading some where
that the G1 could only push around 750mbs. I can't find the info now so I
might just be crazy.
I don't have any G1/G2's in production. I'm just going off the
Adrian,
We push much more voice over our links so I would worry more about PPS
then wire speed on the GigE.
I'm leaning towards upgrading our NPE-300's to G1's and keep things
split up a bit. One reason is I wouldn't have to learn a new platform
and I would know that everything I'm doing
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adrian Chadd
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:32 PM
To: Joseph Jackson
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 10k?
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008, Joseph Jackson wrote:
Do you get wire speed out of those GigE ports? I remember reading some
I've never used a 10k so someone else will have to speak to that. You
might want to consider looking at the new ASR 1000 series though.
http://www.cisco.com/go/asr
They are supposed to be positioned between the 7200s and the 7600s so
they might be able to do what you want. I imagine they can
Mathew,
Thanks for your input. We've looked at the Turin solution already, it
looks really good except they're a year off on getting the blade out to
customers. If we went that route we would want to use a blade instead
of separate boxes.
-Jason
Matthew Crocker wrote:
Jason,
If you
Can you elaborate on that a bit?
Thanks,
Jason
e ninja wrote:
c10k is a beast. You're better of with the VXRs.
/eninja
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Jason Berenson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings,
We currently have 3 7206VXRs with NPE-300's in
Jason Berenson wrote:
Can you elaborate on that a bit?
I believe he might be referring to the power consumption.
Peace... Sridhar
e ninja wrote:
c10k is a beast. You're better of with the VXRs.
/eninja
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Jason Berenson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL
Justin,
I'm not worried too much about the size, I have room and on top of that
it will replace 3+ 7206's. I do however have the option of just
upgrading the 7206's to NPE-G1's, adding more chassis as needed and
calling it a day.
I'm trying to make a decision now before things get too out of
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Jason Berenson wrote:
The big advantages I can see is moving to a single chassis (one router to
manage), it's a much more powerful router then the 7206's and on a per
channelized DS3 port basis, it's half the price per port. With all that in
mind, would you suggest
Justin,
Thanks for your input. That's a good point and something I will have to
research before going any further with this.
Thanks,
Jason
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Jason Berenson wrote:
The big advantages I can see is moving to a single chassis (one
router to
Hi
We migrated from 7206 VXRs to 10k for broadband termination. I must
say that that caused us a lot of trouble. The 10k proved to be very
unstable, leaking memory etc. Of course that might be just our
experience. We tried different IOSes, opened a few TAC cases, but
ultimately decided to go with
Doesn't the 10k use Ciscos FPGA chips (aka PXF)? So if a feature
isn't in the FPGA code it gets punted to the main CPU and performance
goes to hell?
Isn't Cisco doing away with all the routers based off the FPGA code?
NSE-100, 7301, NSE-1 *very* fast when the packets can be handled in
upgrade from a
performance spec
Take care,
Paul
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Crocker
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 4:39 PM
To: Jason Berenson
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 10k?
Doesn't the 10k
Jason Berenson wrote:
Justin,
I'm not worried too much about the size, I have room and on top of that
it will replace 3+ 7206's. I do however have the option of just
upgrading the 7206's to NPE-G1's, adding more chassis as needed and
calling it a day.
I'm trying to make a decision
Paul Stewart wrote:
Hey Jason...
I'm curious as to what you decide in the final aspect and why... we have
several NPE-1G and NPE-2G boxes right now and I need to order a couple of
more to meet capacity needs (DSL termination via PPPOE)... we were also
looking at the 10k series and also took
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Anyways, just wanted to chime in letting you know you're definitely not the
only person facing these issues ; ) I would definitely upgrade to NPE-1G or
2G if it's in budget though as that will be a significant upgrade from a
performance
Adrian Chadd wrote:
Anyways, just wanted to chime in letting you know you're definitely not the
only person facing these issues ; ) I would definitely upgrade to NPE-1G or
2G if it's in budget though as that will be a significant upgrade from a
performance spec
But doesn't the 7200 (and
30 matches
Mail list logo
