Re: [c-nsp] Mpls with layer-2 in between

Unfortunately, I already have that in there, on both sides. mpls ldp router-id Loopback0 force But it's still trying to use the vlan1 interface On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 2:48 PM Scott Miller wrote: > On the 3850, can you do something like: > > mpls ldp router-id Loopback0 > > would probably

Re: [c-nsp] Mpls with layer-2 in between

On the 3850, can you do something like: mpls ldp router-id Loopback0 would probably take bouncing all the ldp neighbors for it to take effect. On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 12:38 PM Shawn L wrote: > I have kind of a strange situation. Trying to figure out what to do moving > forward, and not sure

[c-nsp] Mpls with layer-2 in between

I have kind of a strange situation. Trying to figure out what to do moving forward, and not sure what the best (or quickest) way to solve the issue. I have a mpls cross-connect (pseudowire) between 2 sites. The link comes up, but I can't pass any traffic. sh mpls l2transport vc - shows the

Re: [c-nsp] mpls-te - affinity and link attributes to influence path selection

, I just haven't read it in any document yet. -Aaron -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp On Behalf Of aar...@gvtc.com Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 10:01 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] mpls-te - affinity and link attributes to influence path selection speaking of only

[c-nsp] mpls-te - affinity and link attributes to influence path selection

speaking of only 1 unidirectional te-tunnel from headend r20 to tailend r22 like this r20---to--->r22 physical network looks like this... r20-r21-r22 | | | | r24-r25-r23 i'm observing in my lab, under

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS xconnect with a WS-C3850 switch?

On 8/Nov/19 08:33, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > A Loopback being the established BCP since it never goes down. This. But even more importantly, it abstracts the underlying transport infrastructure. It doesn't matter which link carries the traffic, it will always get to the router. Mark.

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS xconnect with a WS-C3850 switch?

On 8/Nov/19 06:55, Scott Miller wrote: > Doesn't necessarily need to be the loopback, but whatever IP is > configured as the MPLS LDP ROUTER-ID. > > It's just that most of us use the loopback for the MPLS LDP ROUTER-ID. The pedantry is accurate, but I'd rather not waste time about real life

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS xconnect with a WS-C3850 switch?

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, at 05:55, Scott Miller wrote: > It's just that most of us use the loopback for the MPLS LDP ROUTER-ID. A Loopback being the established BCP since it never goes down. -- R.-A. Feurdean ___ cisco-nsp mailing list

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS xconnect with a WS-C3850 switch?

Doesn't necessarily need to be the loopback, but whatever IP is configured as the MPLS LDP ROUTER-ID. It's just that most of us use the loopback for the MPLS LDP ROUTER-ID. On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 2:50 PM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 7/Nov/19 18:37, Shawn L wrote: > > A-ha. Gave both routers

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS xconnect with a WS-C3850 switch?

On 7/Nov/19 18:37, Shawn L wrote: > A-ha. Gave both routers loopback ip addresses and configured the xconnect > to use them, and it came right up. > > It's interesting that it wouldn't work with addresses on the physical > interfaces. In any event, it's working now. Thanks! I'm surprised an

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS xconnect with a WS-C3850 switch?

A-ha. Gave both routers loopback ip addresses and configured the xconnect to use them, and it came right up. It's interesting that it wouldn't work with addresses on the physical interfaces. In any event, it's working now. Thanks! Shawn On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 10:49 AM Scott Miller wrote: >

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS xconnect with a WS-C3850 switch?

I'm doing this now between ASR920's, works fine. Here's an example of what I'm doing: ASR-920-1 interface GigabitEthernet0/0/22 description xx mtu 9000 no ip address load-interval 30 carrier-delay msec 0 negotiation auto ! service instance 3936 ethernet description

[c-nsp] MPLS xconnect with a WS-C3850 switch?

I have an interesting one that I'm trying to figure out. I have TAC case open, but they've been slow to respond to say the least. Wondering if anyone else has ever run into this. I have a simple MPLS xconnect between 2 ASR-920 routers running EIGRP. When I insert the 3850 in between them, the

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS/DIA on same CPE

On 19 June 2018 at 20:48, Scott Miller wrote: > I'm trying to come up with a config for have both MPLS (within a vrf) and > DIA on the same router,. I have what I thought would work all lab'd up, > but it's not all the way there and i'm not sure what i'm missing, or if it > will even work this

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS/DIA on same CPE

age- > From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of > Scott Miller > Sent: martedì 19 giugno 2018 22:08 > To: cisco-nsp > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS/DIA on same CPE > > A little more info: > > Switch 1 2960 Gi1/0/48 trunk - 3825 GigabitEthernet0/1.1

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS/DIA on same CPE

A little more info: Switch 1 2960 Gi1/0/48 trunk - 3825 GigabitEthernet0/1.100 vlan 100 = 192.168.16.254 on switch Switch 1 Gi1/0/1 vlan 100 - 3825 Fe0/0/0 192.168.16.2 (vrf) Switch 2 2960 Gi1/0/48 trunk - 3825 GigabitEthernet0/0.100 vlan 100 = 192.168.11.254 on switch Switch 1 Gi1/0/1 vlan 100

[c-nsp] MPLS/DIA on same CPE

I'm trying to come up with a config for have both MPLS (within a vrf) and DIA on the same router,. I have what I thought would work all lab'd up, but it's not all the way there and i'm not sure what i'm missing, or if it will even work this way. All Cisco equipment: (configs attached)

Re: [c-nsp] mpls on isrv

It seems to me, that upgrading ENCS to 3.7.1 solved this issue... On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, BALLA Attila wrote: Hello, I have just received an ENCS5412 for testing, I have installed an ISRv and connected the ENCS to an external MPLS router. The routing and LDP is working fine between them, but

[c-nsp] mpls on isrv

Hello, I have just received an ENCS5412 for testing, I have installed an ISRv and connected the ENCS to an external MPLS router. The routing and LDP is working fine between them, but the baby giant frames are dropped somewhere: it means that 1500-byte long packets with two labels and DF-bit

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS EXP on STP Frames (6500)

Williams Custodian Data Centres https://www.CustodianDC.com From: Steve Dodd [mailto:sd...@salesforce.com] Sent: 09 February 2018 16:02 To: Robert Williams <rob...@custodiandc.com> Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS EXP on STP Frames (6500) IIRC the EXP values for

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS EXP on STP Frames (6500)

IIRC the EXP values for non-IP traffic are mapped directly from the .1p COS values. Depending on your flavor of STP this field may not even exist, in which case I suspect it is being treated as COS0. Is it possible to have the downstream device push a .1q tag? Cheers, Steve On Fri, Feb 9, 2018

[c-nsp] MPLS EXP on STP Frames (6500)

Hi all, Is anyone aware of a feature which allows the EXP value on an STP frame to be set when it is encapsulated by a xconnect on a 6500? Example config: int gi1/1 description Customer Port xconnect 1.2.3.4 666 encapsulation mpls service-policy input set-exp-3 policy-map set-exp-3

[c-nsp] MPLS OAM behavior on ASR9k/ASR920

Hi all, I'm playing a bit in the lab to understand MPLS OAM operation and I think I see difference in how different routers behave. My lab scenario looks like below: R1 (ASR9006) R2 (ASR9001) --- R3 (ASR920) R4 (ASR920) I have configured IGP and LDP. I'm sourcing MPLS LSP Ping from

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS service provider monitoring tools

Something like this? http://www.packetdesign.com/products/route-explorer-vpns/ ​ ___ 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] MPLS service provider monitoring tools

I'm not sure if this is the correct mailing list for this question, but if it is acceptable then my response is below. Observium is definitely worth it in terms of "just works". I like to have the paid-for version of Observium running which you can point at an IP/Hostname and it will

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS service provider monitoring tools

Hi, I’ve been a big fan of Observium for a number of years, but recently I’ve been looking to switch to LibreNMS as they tend to be a little faster at building support for new equipment. You might find either one would fit your needs. The pay features in Observium are included in LibreNMS

[c-nsp] MPLS service provider monitoring tools

Hello everyone, I am looking for some recommendations about network monitoring tools (open source or commercial). This is a MPLS Network with around 300 clients. L3vpn and L2vpn running. There are some central vpn services as well. There are no te tunnels. Device list are ASR 9k (9004) ASR

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS load-balancing on ME-3800X

Hello all, Thanks for the responses. > I believe the ASR920 is capable of load balancing on egress port channel. It > depends of course on the hashing algorithm but certainly the actual payload > must "contain" several flows that will be identified and will be sent to > different members. >

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS/VPLS gear with ext.temperatures

Rob, You will be hard pressed finding the feature set you are after in a hardened low touch router. ASR920 -IM series has some limited IPsec support as you have discovered. There is the Juniper ACX500, but the encryption throughput is probably quite throughput limited - probably mostly

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS/VPLS gear with ext.temperatures

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Lukas Tribus wrote: > >There is basic IPsec support afaik, I'm not sure about MPLS over > >GREoIPSEC though. > Do you know if this box supports MACsec ? IPsec is useless as it's very limited - according to documentation: Packet size

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS/VPLS gear with ext.temperatures

Hello Robert, > As equipment will work in unfriendly environment it have to support > extended operating temperatures (from -20*C up to 60*C) The ASR920 should be able to work in that conditions, check table 8 (Environmental Specifications) at [1]. There is basic IPsec support afaik, I'm not

[c-nsp] MPLS/VPLS gear with ext.temperatures

Hi I'm looking for Cisco products which supports MPLS features: - L3 VPN - L2 VPN Point-to-Point - L2 VPN Multipoint (VPLS or similar) - it's not mandatory but will be usefull As equipment will work in unfriendly environment it have to support extended operating temperatures (from -20*C up to

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS load-balancing on ME-3800X

(lbromirs)" <lbrom...@cisco.com>, Waris Sagheer <wa...@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS load-balancing on ME-3800X Hi James , I believe the ASR920 is capable of load balancing on egress port channel. It depends of course on the hashing algorithm but certainly the actual paylo

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS load-balancing on ME-3800X

Hi James , I believe the ASR920 is capable of load balancing on egress port channel. It depends of course on the hashing algorithm but certainly the actual payload must "contain" several flows that will be identified and will be sent to different members. Is that your case? -- George On 15 Dec

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS load-balancing on ME-3800X

Hi Waris, One question I have about load-balancing on ASR920. If the device is acting as PE for L2VPN, how does one actually achieve load balancing out to the CE facing LAG interface? The CE facing configuration is contained in an EFP, and according to IOS XE documentation, EFPs inside a

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS load-balancing on ME-3800X

com> Date: Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 9:21 AM To: Waris Sagheer <wa...@cisco.com> Cc: "Lukasz Bromirski (lbromirs)" <lbrom...@cisco.com>, "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net" <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS load-balancing on ME-3800X On 16

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS Suggestion on 7604 Router

On 13 November 2016 at 18:51, Lukas Tribus wrote: > Hello, > > >> We are going to deploy 7604 router in our network (replacing 7200 G2). > > I would strongly suggest against a 7600 deployment. Its EOL/EOS and its > extremely expensive if you buy from Cisco. > > The ASR9k

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS load-balancing on ME-3800X

On 16 November 2016 at 08:33, Waris Sagheer (waris) wrote: > Updated Document with fixed formatting and also moved it to google drive > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5Q6qCRMe89_ZThNbWdDUWpyR2c?usp=sharing Thanks for updating the document Waris. Can you clarify what

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS load-balancing on ME-3800X

siness/legal/cri/index.html From: Łukasz Bromirski <luk...@bromirski.net> Reply-To: "Lukasz Bromirski (lbromirs)" <lbrom...@cisco.com> Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 at 10:20 AM To: Waris Sagheer <wa...@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS load-balancing on

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS load-balancing on ME-3800X

al/cri/index.html From: Patrick Cole <z...@amused.net> Date: Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 4:39 PM To: James Bensley <jwbens...@gmail.com> Cc: Waris Sagheer <wa...@cisco.com>, "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net" <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS load-ba

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS Suggestion on 7604 Router

Hello, > We are going to deploy 7604 router in our network (replacing 7200 G2). I would strongly suggest against a 7600 deployment. Its EOL/EOS and its extremely expensive if you buy from Cisco. The ASR9k series is what you should be looking at. With the small ASR9001 you can already get

[c-nsp] MPLS Suggestion on 7604 Router

Hello, We are going to deploy 7604 router in our network.(replacing 7200 G2). we have the following configuration 1. RSP720-3CXL-10GE 2. 76-ES+XC-20G3CXL Now my question is on which port would be better for MPLS Core interface and which would be subscriber facing interface? We would be

[c-nsp] MPLS Recirculation

Hi All, I have a long running and complex issue with some 7600 PEs, the crux of the matter may be down to the command "mls mpls recir-agg" and aggregate labels, my problem is that Cisco are not clearly explaining to me (nor is it clearly documented) how/when/why this is command is needed. Does

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS traffic not taking LSP tunnels

Hi, On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 12:17:02PM -0500, Joe Freeman wrote: > I see this in failed pings between the CE routers and traceroutes between > them that show the link addresses of the P routers before the traffic fails. This is not necessarily an indication of "not taking the tunnel", because if

[c-nsp] MPLS traffic not taking LSP tunnels

Greetings all- I have some 7301's setup with MP-BGP, ISIS/te, and LDP. All of that works. I'm trying to setup a L3VPN across this network (this is all lab). All my routes show up on each side of the L3VPN. My tunnels come up between endpoints. The problem I'm having is that traffic from the CE

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS via SVI on Sup720-PFC3b

You can always hack it up and recirculate it and waste a couple front ports if you are really in a pinch :) On 9/20/2016 11:27 AM, Ryan NSP wrote: Howdy folks, I am in the middle of some re-arch/migrations/you name it, and I am trying to lay out some design ahead of ripping out some legacy

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS via SVI on Sup720-PFC3b

04:24 p.m. Para: Tarko Tikan <ta...@lanparty.ee> CC: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Asunto: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS via SVI on Sup720-PFC3b Hey Tarko, That might be less insane than vrf-lite'ing everything everywhere. I found some confusing documentation after doing some reading. http://www.cisco.co

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS via SVI on Sup720-PFC3b

Hey Tarko, That might be less insane than vrf-lite'ing everything everywhere. I found some confusing documentation after doing some reading. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/15-1SY/config_guide/sup720/15_1_sy_swcg_720/vpn.html#50545 The note on that particular

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS via SVI on Sup720-PFC3b

hey, If you don't want to spend any money on this, loop the related vlan with external cable to physical port? Not pretty but you can get it done with zero cost if you have two ports to spare. -- tarko ___ cisco-nsp mailing list

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS via SVI on Sup720-PFC3b

Hmm, thanks guys... I would be OK tearing out and replacing with 2T to get this done if it works. That's not as bad as line cards galore. 6500s... so really don't want to dump too much cash into them as I'm planning to get rid of them in the next couple years. Looks like if I do the 2T I also

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS via SVI on Sup720-PFC3b

Hi, On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:27:08AM -0400, Ryan NSP wrote: > Specifically I am trying to determine if I can run MPLS on a SVI off of a > Sup720-PFC3b with WS-X6748-GE-TX (CFC) line cards and a WS-X6516A-GBIC > blade (where the SVI for my LDP neighbor ultimately goes), or just at port > level?

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS via SVI on Sup720-PFC3b

Nope. You need a core facing 'ES' based card to do the label imposition with that Sup. I believe the SUP2T is able to do this now without requiring core facing ES cards, but don’t hold me to that. > On Sep 20, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Ryan NSP wrote: > > Howdy folks, > >

[c-nsp] MPLS via SVI on Sup720-PFC3b

Howdy folks, I am in the middle of some re-arch/migrations/you name it, and I am trying to lay out some design ahead of ripping out some legacy gear, if possible. Priorities/budgets/finite amount of hands and that... Specifically I am trying to determine if I can run MPLS on a SVI off of a

[c-nsp] MPLS TE inside VRF

Does anyone know if running MPLS-TE /inside/ a VRF is supported or works on IOS-XE? I have been trying it in the lab unsuccessfully. All the commands take as you would expect but the ingress TE tunnel initialisation gets stuck when the TE code tells RSVP to send a PATH msg: "Processing PATH

Re: [c-nsp] mpls-neighbor

If you share your device configurations someone can probably help you better. I think you are referring to LDP multicast discovery though, with all three routers in a switch and presumably in the same VLAN (broadcast domain) they are detecting each other’s multicast hellos. It’s hard to say

[c-nsp] mpls-neighbor

When tow routers connected together,on R2 , "show mpls ldp neighbor" has one neighbor . but when three routers and connected to switch ,R1 have 2interwafce on SW and R1 ' interfaces have same range by R1 and R3 . R1,R2 = 10.0.0.0/8 R1,R3 = 20.0.0.0/8 mpls run on all routers and on R2 "show

[c-nsp] MPLS to CPE and use MACSEC

Gents, I am planning to extend MPLS to CPE (4321). The main reason is quick provisioning. We are trying to achieve a plug and play type of service with minimum configurations. My plan to use MACSEC between the PE and CE connections. The network is small and routing table will not be more than 2K

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS load-balancing on ME-3800X

I'm also interested in the answer to this too, particularly for ASR920. Patrick Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 05:21:07PM +0100, James Bensley wrote: > Hi Waris, > > No, still havne't found the answer nor had the time to ask TAC. > > I'm wanting to know how MPLS labelled traffic is balanced on LAG for

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS load-balancing on ME-3800X

Hi Waris, No, still havne't found the answer nor had the time to ask TAC. I'm wanting to know how MPLS labelled traffic is balanced on LAG for the ME3600X/ME3800X and ASR920s. Cheers, James. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS load-balancing on ME-3800X

James, Not sure if you have got the answer. If not, let me know and I can provide you the info. Best Regards, Waris Sagheer Technical Marketing Manager Service Provider Routing Segment wa...@cisco.com TME Jive page:https://cisco.jiveon.com/groups/sp-tme-internal-page Phone: +1 408 853 6682

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS on ASR1000 - Ping mpls returns 'QQQQQ'

I'm not sure that hundreds of lines or configs are required, just a snippet. Are you using OAM per chance, have you checked what OAM says about this link? Cheers, James. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS on ASR1000 - Ping mpls returns 'QQQQQ'

On 06/21/2016 12:14 AM, James Bensley wrote: On 21 June 2016 at 00:06, Mike wrote: sh mpls l2transport vc detail ... Last error: MPLS dataplane reported a fault to the nexthop Output interface: none, imposed label stack {} Preferred path:

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS on ASR1000 - Ping mpls returns 'QQQQQ'

On 21 June 2016 at 00:06, Mike wrote: > sh mpls l2transport vc detail ... > Last error: MPLS dataplane reported a fault to the nexthop > Output interface: none, imposed label stack {} > Preferred path: not configured > Default path: no route >

[c-nsp] MPLS on ASR1000 - Ping mpls returns 'QQQQQ'

Hi, I am trying to configure MPLS on an ASR1000 and have been running into issues. I have a vrf called 'mplsbackbone' with a single interface in it, which points (strangely enough), into my mpls backbone. The loopback ip is 10.0.15.1 and the next hop router (an me3600x) is

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS load-balancing on ME-3800X

Reviving this old thread... On 6 March 2012 at 06:01, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Monday, March 05, 2012 06:18:27 PM Tassos > Chatzithomaoglou wrote: > >> To correct my first email, i'm looking for ether-channel >> load-balancing of MPLS traffic. > > AFAIK, you don't get any

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS Routing with PBR

Thanks for the explanation guys. On Jun 9, 2016 8:44 PM, "Adam Vitkovsky" wrote: > > Curtis Piehler > > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 7:35 PM > > > > I have quite a scenario here that we are working on testing in the lab > but > > wanted to know if anyone has

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS Routing with PBR

> Curtis Piehler > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 7:35 PM > > I have quite a scenario here that we are working on testing in the lab but > wanted to know if anyone has experience in this. > > In this scenario there are a few PE routers (ASR9K) connected to each other > with a "firewall" connecting

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS Routing with PBR

> So I'm confused a bit then. Once the label pops it sees a next hop > in that VRF aware router and will get imported into that VRF no? No. There are no VRF imports, no IP based actions on an LSR, even when you call the box a PE. The intermediate nodes just swaps one transport label with

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS Routing with PBR

> If the packet ends up traversing PE routers that are VRF aware of the > customer on it's way to that final PE router will the in between PE routers > pop the labels and subject the packet to normal VPNV4 routing table instead > of just label switching entirely to the final PE router? No,

[c-nsp] MPLS Routing with PBR

I have quite a scenario here that we are working on testing in the lab but wanted to know if anyone has experience in this. In this scenario there are a few PE routers (ASR9K) connected to each other with a "firewall" connecting to one of the PE routers. Two different PE routers have a customer

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

On 25 Apr 2016, at 16:56, Mark Tinka wrote: > If you were greenfielding an RR, I'd not go physical in 2016. +1 --- Roland Dobbins ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

On 24/May/16 10:20, Gert Doering wrote: > The G2 isn't *that* bad... :-) - but an ASR1k would indeed run circles > around it, as would a CSR1000v on a decent current server. Agree. The NPE-G2 used to be my RR of choice as well, until I met the CSR1000v. Mark. signature.asc Description:

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

On 24/May/16 10:13, Mohammad Khalil wrote: > Thanks all , so the best option to follow is either ASR1001-X or CSR1000v > right? > AS well , will Cisco VXR7206 NPE-2G will be of good choice? CSR1000v - more CPU, more RAM, than you'll ever need. Mark.

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

Hi, > Got you Sander :) > But I think CSR1000V will do what I need because it looks like a PC right ? :) Right :) If that is what your customer can manage then go for that. Sander signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

Thanks Gert :) BR, > Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:20:08 +0200 > From: g...@greenie.muc.de > To: san...@steffann.nl > CC: eng_m...@hotmail.com; g...@greenie.muc.de; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors > > Hi, > > On Tue, May 24, 2016

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

Got you Sander :) But I think CSR1000V will do what I need because it looks like a PC right ? :) BR, > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors > From: san...@steffann.nl > Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:18:05 +0200 > CC: g...@greenie.muc.de; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > To: eng_m

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

Hi, On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:14:31AM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: > > AS well , will Cisco VXR7206 NPE-2G will be of good choice? > > Please read the "fast CPU and lots of memory" bit again... The G2 isn't *that* bad... :-) - but an ASR1k would indeed run circles around it, as would a

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

> Sorry Sander , I did but am just trying to evaluate what my customer already > have in stock They don't have a PC with a decent amount of CPU and memory? Look further than router hardware :-) Router hardware is good at forwarding packets, which is the opposite of what you need. Cheers,

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

Sorry Sander , I did but am just trying to evaluate what my customer already have in stock > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors > From: san...@steffann.nl > Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:14:31 +0200 > CC: g...@greenie.muc.de; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > To: eng_m...@hotmail.co

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

> Thanks all , so the best option to follow is either ASR1001-X or CSR1000v > right? > AS well , will Cisco VXR7206 NPE-2G will be of good choice? Please read the "fast CPU and lots of memory" bit again... signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

Thanks all , so the best option to follow is either ASR1001-X or CSR1000v right? AS well , will Cisco VXR7206 NPE-2G will be of good choice? > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors > From: san...@steffann.nl > Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:03:20 +0200 > CC: eng_m...@hotmail.co

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:53:50AM +0300, Mohammad Khalil wrote: >> I am limited to the below choices: >> ASR920 and ASR903 , what to choose? > > Neither one is a particular BGP-RR-oriented platform. > > What you want is something with a fast CPU and lots of memory, and you > don't care about

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

On 24/May/16 09:53, Mohammad Khalil wrote: > I am limited to the below choices: > ASR920 and ASR903 , what to choose? Neither. Mark. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

Hi, On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:53:50AM +0300, Mohammad Khalil wrote: > I am limited to the below choices: > ASR920 and ASR903 , what to choose? Neither one is a particular BGP-RR-oriented platform. What you want is something with a fast CPU and lots of memory, and you don't care about

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

I am limited to the below choices: ASR920 and ASR903 , what to choose? BR, Mohammad > From: soltan...@gmail.com > To: mkkai...@gmail.com; eng_m...@hotmail.com; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: RE: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors > Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:51:49 +0430 > >

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

On 25/Apr/16 11:53, razvan romanescu via cisco-nsp wrote: > Hi, > You can use ASR1001-X (this is what we use). The only thing which you need is > RAM. You would not even need to have 10G interface, as you would do just > RR(they will be out-of-band). 1 Gig interface is more then enough.

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

Monday, April 25, 2016 1:08 PM To: Mohammad Khalil <eng_m...@hotmail.com>; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors Hello Muhammad! If you use Cisco and can use Virtual Routers on network Cisco CSR1000v will your best choise. Many guys from list will recomend it fo

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

On 25/Apr/16 10:33, Mohammad Khalil wrote: > Hi all > I have MPLS network with OSPF as the underlying IGP , my current two route > reflectors are ASR9010 > The > current design is in-band route reflection , what am trying to > implement is to pull out these two routers and use them as MPLS

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

g_m...@hotmail.com>; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors Hello Muhammad! If you use Cisco and can use Virtual Routers on network Cisco CSR1000v will your best choise. Many guys from list will recomend it for you. 2016-04-25 11:33 GMT+03:00 Mohammad Khalil

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

Hello Muhammad! If you use Cisco and can use Virtual Routers on network Cisco CSR1000v will your best choise. Many guys from list will recomend it for you. 2016-04-25 11:33 GMT+03:00 Mohammad Khalil : > Hi all > I have MPLS network with OSPF as the underlying IGP , my

[c-nsp] MPLS route reflectors

Hi all I have MPLS network with OSPF as the underlying IGP , my current two route reflectors are ASR9010 The current design is in-band route reflection , what am trying to implement is to pull out these two routers and use them as MPLS PE and change the route reflection model to out-of-band So

Re: [c-nsp] mpls and etherchannel

> Lukas Tribus > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 1:17 PM > > > On 20/Apr/16 20:12, Lukas Tribus wrote: > > > >> If we would know the platform, we could tell you more, but > >> generically speaking, ECMP doesn't behave any better or worse than > port-channeling. > > > > Beg to differ on this one. >

Re: [c-nsp] mpls and etherchannel

On 22/Apr/16 15:41, Lukas Tribus wrote: > What you can do on the 9k is manual hash shifting [1], but if the > underlying hash sucks, it won't really solve your issue I guess. Sounds a bit like Juniper's "adaptive" mode. I think we'd run into the same issue on the ASR9000 as with adaptive

Re: [c-nsp] mpls and etherchannel

> Per-packet load balancing is one of two options; the other being "adaptive".  >  > Adaptive was meant to fix the actual problem we are using per-packet to  > solve, which is cases where spray of packets across the member links is  > unequal. The adaptive mode was developed to dynamically realize

Re: [c-nsp] mpls and etherchannel

@hotmail.com>; Mike <mike-cisconspl...@tiedyenetworks.com>; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] mpls and etherchannel > Mark Tinka > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 9:42 PM > > > > On 20/Apr/16 20:12, Lukas Tribus wrote: > > > If we would know the

Re: [c-nsp] mpls and etherchannel

On 22/Apr/16 15:22, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > I was meant to ask when you mentioned it for the first time, how can one > enable per-packet load-sharing in junos? > I mean the per-flow is enabled with keyword: "per-packet" is there an option > "per-packet-for-real" ? :) You do it at the LAG

Re: [c-nsp] mpls and etherchannel

> Mark Tinka > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 9:42 PM > > > > On 20/Apr/16 20:12, Lukas Tribus wrote: > > > If we would know the platform, we could tell you more, but generically > > speaking, ECMP doesn't behave any better or worse than port-channeling. > > Beg to differ on this one. > > We have

Re: [c-nsp] mpls and etherchannel

On 21/Apr/16 14:17, Lukas Tribus wrote: > What I meant (with "generically speaking"), is that there is no reason for > a box to differ in the load-balancing behavior just because of ECMP vs LACP, > because the NP lookup to create the load balancing hash has the same > exact cost (its not like

Re: [c-nsp] mpls and etherchannel

> On 20/Apr/16 20:12, Lukas Tribus wrote: > >> If we would know the platform, we could tell you more, but generically >> speaking, ECMP doesn't behave any better or worse than port-channeling. > > Beg to differ on this one. > > We have converted some LACP links to native IP/MPLS to get ECMP

Re: [c-nsp] mpls and etherchannel

To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] mpls and etherchannel Hi, I have 2x 200mbps microwave links connecting switch 'a' to switch 'b'. I have a port-channel configured and I currently get an acceptable split of traffic based on source / destination address mac hash. I am now

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >