Re: [c-nsp] Idiot checking LC compatibility across different 7600 chassis.
hi, On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 02:31:47PM +, Nick Cutting wrote: > The 6148's are so bad - I think they share 1g of bandwidth per 8 ports. I > saw a client dropping TB's a day with these linecards. Indeed. And refurbished 6748GE-TX (with 40GE fabric connection) can be had for about 300 EUR these days. gert -- "If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never doubted it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor." Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Idiot checking LC compatibility across different 7600 chassis.
The 6148's are so bad - I think they share 1g of bandwidth per 8 ports. I saw a client dropping TB's a day with these linecards. -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp On Behalf Of Tom Hill Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 10:08 AM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Idiot checking LC compatibility across different 7600 chassis. This message originates from outside of your organisation. On 28/09/18 14:57, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > To that end, I’ve got a bunch of WS-X6148A-GE-45AF cards and a pair of > SUP720-3BXLs in a 7606 chassis (PID: CISCO7606) and it works fine despite the > WS-X6148A-GE-45AF data sheet making no reference to 7600 support, only 6500 > support. > > I need to forklift the 7606 for a 7613 (which is already equipped with a FAN2 > and a pair of PWR-6000-DC PSUs). > > Should all just work, ya? Most likely, yes. Though the 6148s are 'classic bus' cards, which do not use the chassis fabric. They're hideous and slow down the whole router, due to taking up bandwidth on the classic bus that is also used for lookup signalling between CFCs and the supervisor (no use of classic bus cards, and the use of DFCs, is required to overcome those limitations). If you're intending to add more, please add 6548s as a minimum. Better yet, please put all of your 7600 gear into the sea and use more power-efficient devices. :) Regards, -- Tom ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Idiot checking LC compatibility across different 7600 chassis.
On 28/09/18 14:57, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > To that end, I’ve got a bunch of WS-X6148A-GE-45AF cards and a pair of > SUP720-3BXLs in a 7606 chassis (PID: CISCO7606) and it works fine despite the > WS-X6148A-GE-45AF data sheet making no reference to 7600 support, only 6500 > support. > > I need to forklift the 7606 for a 7613 (which is already equipped with a FAN2 > and a pair of PWR-6000-DC PSUs). > > Should all just work, ya? Most likely, yes. Though the 6148s are 'classic bus' cards, which do not use the chassis fabric. They're hideous and slow down the whole router, due to taking up bandwidth on the classic bus that is also used for lookup signalling between CFCs and the supervisor (no use of classic bus cards, and the use of DFCs, is required to overcome those limitations). If you're intending to add more, please add 6548s as a minimum. Better yet, please put all of your 7600 gear into the sea and use more power-efficient devices. :) Regards, -- Tom ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] Idiot checking LC compatibility across different 7600 chassis.
Hey there, I haven’t dealt with the 7600 platform for a number of years, so I need a quick idiot check on what I think I remember. IIRC, the 7600 chassis (non-S) is the same thing as a 6500 chassis (non-E), so anything that works in one should work in the other. To that end, I’ve got a bunch of WS-X6148A-GE-45AF cards and a pair of SUP720-3BXLs in a 7606 chassis (PID: CISCO7606) and it works fine despite the WS-X6148A-GE-45AF data sheet making no reference to 7600 support, only 6500 support. I need to forklift the 7606 for a 7613 (which is already equipped with a FAN2 and a pair of PWR-6000-DC PSUs). Should all just work, ya? Thanks! ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] l2tpv3 Issues on 6800/3800
Hi, On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 08:01:22AM +, Harivishnu Abhilash wrote: > Thanks for the response. But we were quite surprised as the 6800 was > doing EoMPLS perfectly. It's based on 6500 architecture, which has done MPLS and EoMPLS (and, depending on Supervisor generation, also VPLS) "since ever" (sup720 days). L2TPv3 is a different protocol, and the old hardware never had support for it - and you can't just add it by means of software upgrade. gert -- "If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never doubted it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor." Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] l2tpv3 Issues on 6800/3800
Thanks for the response. But we were quite surprised as the 6800 was doing EoMPLS perfectly. We had to do L2tpV3 as we shifted the role of the mpls device to non-mpls (sort of a migration from a PE role to CE for design requirements) and more over we are only extending a peering VLAN to get the IBGP between to routers up (like a backup path) Ta -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 10:02 AM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [c-nsp] l2tpv3 Issues on 6800/3800 On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, at 03:38, Hari . wrote: > Hello Team, > > We are trying to extend the L2doamin for IP cloud (non-mpls), the > intention was to use l2tpv3, but it doesn't seem to be supported in > 6800/3850 > Anyone tried or can provide some guidance Hi, First things first : DON'T ! More precisely (for the impact) : https://www.packetmischief.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/failure-domain-atomic-bomb.jpg .. and the related post : https://www.packetmischief.ca/2013/04/02/why-is-there-a-wrong-way-to-interconnect-datacenters/ That being sorted out, 6800 is a switch and should not be expected to do l2tpv3. Same for the 3850, if this is what you mean by "3800". You may try you luck with GREP (Ethernet over GRE), but support on 3850 is "variable" at best (starting with "not supported" - depending on OS version). -- R.-A. Feurdean ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ Disclaimer: This electronic message and all contents contain information from Mannai Corporation which may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from discloser. The information is intended to be for the addressee only. If you are not addressee, any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original and all copies. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] l2tpv3 Issues on 6800/3800
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, at 03:38, Hari . wrote: > Hello Team, > > We are trying to extend the L2doamin for IP cloud (non-mpls), the > intention was to use l2tpv3, but it doesn't seem to be supported in > 6800/3850 > Anyone tried or can provide some guidance Hi, First things first : DON'T ! More precisely (for the impact) : https://www.packetmischief.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/failure-domain-atomic-bomb.jpg .. and the related post : https://www.packetmischief.ca/2013/04/02/why-is-there-a-wrong-way-to-interconnect-datacenters/ That being sorted out, 6800 is a switch and should not be expected to do l2tpv3. Same for the 3850, if this is what you mean by "3800". You may try you luck with GREP (Ethernet over GRE), but support on 3850 is "variable" at best (starting with "not supported" - depending on OS version). -- R.-A. Feurdean ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
