Hi James, I was not aware of the issue which you mentioned regarding 6PE. I am hoping this problem will go away with Application Engineered Routing a.k.a Segment Routing since you will be able to build IPv6 LSP without using 6PE.
Best Regards, [http://www.cisco.com/web/europe/images/email/signature/horizontal06.jpg] Waris Sagheer Technical Marketing Manager Service Provider Routing Segment wa...@cisco.com<mailto:wa...@cisco.com> Phone: +1 408 853 6682 Mobile: +1 408 835 1389 CCIE - 19901 <http://www.cisco.com/> This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. For corporate legal information go to:http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html From: "cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net>" <cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net>> on behalf of James Jun <ja...@towardex.com<mailto:ja...@towardex.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 3:22 PM To: Aaron <aar...@gvtc.com<mailto:aar...@gvtc.com>> Cc: "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>" <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] The Family of ASR902 - ASR903 - ASR907 It seems quite scalable and seems to have a nice path to higher density ethernet with the RSP3 supporting (8) 10 gig, (2) 40 gig and (1) 100 gig Yea, the 10G port density is pretty awesome with RSP3. 100Gig IMA requires CPAK though. What do y'all know about this 902,903,907 ? I want it for my distribution/aggregation of L2 and L3, vpls (manual and bgp ad), vpnv4 and future vpnv6. Right now, we roll 903, 902 and 920s for simple L2 Metro-E backhaul, nothing fancy and it works really well for us. We also use it for VPLS and no problem there either. The only caveat we ran into is lack of hash options for LACP/port-channels. Not really easy to load-balance if a subscriber has LACP'd bundle into one of these. There is no support for 5-tuple hash, nor MPLS label hash like on Cat65/68k Sup2T or ASR 9k series on bundles; you only get src-dst IP/mac. Lastly, (it's not really ASR 90x problem) it uses IOS XE, which means if you are running 6PE and have ASR 90x in the label switching path, it will reply to IPv6 traceroute with FFFF::ipv4, instead of using IPv6 address you have configured in the transiting interfaces on the box. We typically configure IPv6 interface on core interfaces, even if we're running 6PE and have no IPv6 routing protocols in the core. On IOS XR, NXOS and JUNOS, P routers in the path will always pick the configured interface IPv6 address to respond to v6 traceroute; IOS XE and Classic will always pick FFFF::ipv4 and it's quite annoying as it breaks traceroute on several operating systems (i.e. FreeBSD) that conform to RFC which does not permit FFFF:: from the wire. Best, james _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto: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/
