Re: [c-nsp] ASR9k Bundle QoS in 6.0.1

Hi, Got to the bottom of this at last! [The new command enables a feature which works as follows] - Whenever a policy is applied on the bundle member – first a ratio can be calculated based on total bundle bandwidth to bundle member’s bandwidth as follows: (ratio = bundle bandwidth/member

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9000 Import/Exporting between two VRFs

Can you maybe try and match on a community instead of the rd? Arie On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:57 AM Curtis Piehler wrote: > My issue with using VASI interaces is that I do not have a MSB card. > On Jun 14, 2016 9:11 PM, "Steve Dodd" wrote: > > >

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9k Bundle QoS in 6.0.1

On 16/Jun/16 10:33, Robert Williams wrote: > > [Disadvantages] > - Assumes good balance, will over-police if traffic is not evenly distributed > between member ports. This is still the biggest issue with policing a LAG. It should be less of an issue for IP traffic - but for non-IP traffic,

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9k Bundle QoS in 6.0.1

> Robert Williams > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 9:33 AM > > Hi, > > Got to the bottom of this at last! > > [The new command enables a feature which works as follows] > > - Whenever a policy is applied on the bundle member – first a ratio can be > calculated based on total bundle bandwidth to

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9k Bundle QoS in 6.0.1

On 14/Jun/16 16:57, Robert Williams wrote: > Hi all, > > Ok, continuation from the original query here... I've dropped 6.0.1 on a lab > box and found a command which wasn't in 5.3.3 and 'sounds' like it relates to > the issue originally discussed (aggregated bundle-ether qos shaping, per >

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9k Bundle QoS in 6.0.1

On 16/Jun/16 14:20, Tom Hill wrote: > Do you need some FAT-PW? :) Implementation is different between Junos and IOS XR. So in a dual vendor scenario, it's awkward. Mark. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9k Bundle QoS in 6.0.1

>> Do you need some FAT-PW? :) > Implementation is different between Junos and IOS XR. So in a dual vendor > scenario, it's awkward. Also (for us anyway) carrying 'other carriers' between our sites, even on IOS-XR with Flow-Aware labels it doesn't balance. Reason is that only see the other

[c-nsp] ASR1006 IOS version question

On cisco support i am seeing two ISO version which one should i use on production? Suggested: - 3.16.3S(ED) - 3.13.5aS(MD) Latest: - 3.17.2S(ED) Should i use Lates one 3.17.2S(ED) or i should use suggested what is the difference? ___ cisco-nsp

Re: [c-nsp] VTP doubt

Hello, > Am 16.06.2016 um 18:52 schrieb james list : > > Hi > I've two 6500 (6500-A and 6500-B) in production as VTP server, access > switch are 3750 or 4500 as VTP clients. > > Today if I add manually a vlan on one of the two VTP server (ie on 6500-A) > it's propagated

Re: [c-nsp] VTP doubt

If you must use VTP in production - use version 3 if you can, they got rid of the floors that cause the nightmare that Patrick mentioned. Also remember that VTP and vlan broadcast domains are totally separate - VTP is just config replication. -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9k Bundle QoS in 6.0.1

On 16/06/16 15:50, Robert Williams wrote: > Also (for us anyway) carrying 'other carriers' between our sites, > even on IOS-XR with Flow-Aware labels it doesn't balance. Reason is > that only see the other carriers' MPLS core IPs (the real customer > IP/port/data is even deeper inside the packet

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9k Bundle QoS in 6.0.1

Your customers are running MPLS between their sites - across L2 MPLS provider Links? This is something that I also want to do as an enterprise man, but was always worried about MTU etc. Just so I understand - this also causes a hashing issue for the ISP's as the sources and destinations are

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9k Bundle QoS in 6.0.1

> Your customers are running MPLS between their sites - across L2 MPLS provider > Links? > This is something that I also want to do as an enterprise man, but was always > worried about MTU etc. > Just so I understand - this also causes a hashing issue for the ISP's as the > sources and

[c-nsp] VTP doubt

Hi I've two 6500 (6500-A and 6500-B) in production as VTP server, access switch are 3750 or 4500 as VTP clients. Today if I add manually a vlan on one of the two VTP server (ie on 6500-A) it's propagated to the other server (6500-B) and clients. The question is: do I've to add manually on both

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1006 IOS version question

> On cisco support i am seeing two ISO version which one should i use on > production? > > Suggested: >   - 3.16.3S(ED) >   - 3.13.5aS(MD) 03.16.3S, because its supported for a longer time. > Latest: >   - 3.17.2S(ED) > > Should i use Lates one 3.17.2S(ED) or i should use suggested what is

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9k Bundle QoS in 6.0.1

> Robert Williams > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 5:18 PM > > > Your customers are running MPLS between their sites - across L2 MPLS > provider Links? > > This is something that I also want to do as an enterprise man, but was > always worried about MTU etc. > > Just so I understand - this also

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1006 IOS version question

Hi The ED version means Early Development and may have bugs. The MD version was revised and has no bug. This also applicable for suggested and latest. Based on experience it is better to go with suggested version. On Jun 16, 2016 9:47 PM, "Satish Patel" wrote: On cisco

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9k Bundle QoS in 6.0.1

On 16/Jun/16 20:37, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Bundles are tricky. Have you considered separate IP links instead? Cause then > you could do MPLS-TE/SR tunnel over each link and forcing PWs into tunnels to > get proper PW-to-Link distribution. For the core, this is what we're

Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 drops despite policy-map

On 15 June 2016 at 22:43, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > Apparently that three layer stuff is what was required in order to make this > work. Any other variation would fail during creation of the various maps and > classes. > > I don't recall the specifics as to why though. Ah OK,