Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 7000 MPLS
On 01/06/2012 07:26 AM, Tim Stevenson wrote: Correct. No EoMPLS, no VPLS as yet, it's roadmapped. Tim, do you happen to know / can you tell us if the L2 MPLS features will be covered by the same feature license, or will people have to shell out for an MPLS2 feature license? ___ 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] Nexus 7000 MPLS
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:25:46 -0800, you wrote: I see the Nexus 7000 does MPLS now (perhaps for some time?). Is there anyone out there using MPLS on these and cares to comment about their experience? I'm particularly interested in RSVP, L3VPN support using OSPF as the PE/CE protocol, any scalability issues, possibly some interop w/ Juniper MX, and of course stability. I have done a setup where we do MPLS on N7K in a traditional data center setup (no CEs). IGP is OSPF. Signalling is LDP. Only L3 VPNs. Everything we use Just Works(tm). Performance is excellent. -A ___ 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] SFP consolidation GLC-*/SFP-* = GLC-* (Vlans on an ASR9000)
On 06/01/2012 07:11, Klaus Kastens wrote: Basically GLC-* only (i.e. GLC-SX-MM + SFP-GE-S = GLC-SX-MMD). SFP features on new Product IDs: - Backward compatible - Digital Optical Monitoring - UDI compliant - PbFree - Extended temperature range of operation (-5°C to 85°C) This almost looks like the specs from the SFP-*, no idea why the chose the GLC-* SKU instead of the SFP-*. Hadn't seen this, but it is a good long term strategy - I'm glad that someone in Cisco has finally decided to take the plunge. Although, according to the transceiver compatibility matrix, there are still a pile of products which don't explicitly support the GLC-*D transceivers yet, even though the sfp-* and old-style glc-* SKUs are scheduled to be phased out by July of this year. Hope the backwards compatibility is good, because transceivers can do odd things from time to time. Nick ___ 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] Nexus 7000 MPLS
On 06/01/12 10:31, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote: On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:25:46 -0800, you wrote: I see the Nexus 7000 does MPLS now (perhaps for some time?). Is there anyone out there using MPLS on these and cares to comment about their experience? I'm particularly interested in RSVP, L3VPN support using OSPF as the PE/CE protocol, any scalability issues, possibly some interop w/ Juniper MX, and of course stability. I have done a setup where we do MPLS on N7K in a traditional data center setup (no CEs). IGP is OSPF. Signalling is LDP. Only L3 VPNs. Everything we use Just Works(tm). Performance is excellent. That's good to hear. Did you try any MVPN or 6vPE? ___ 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] Deploying MSTP
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Frédéric Loui frederic.l...@renater.frwrote: If you have a complex L2 topology and lots of VLAN per instance. VLANs per MST instance can become tedious. Might be worth to use some configuration/check scripts so as to make sure that all VLANs are bound to the right MST instance Also worth noting, this hassle of needing to pre-map VLANs can go away in an active/active Nexus vPC or Catalyst VSS environment. Your paths are all active/active even for a single MST instance, so you don't need to use two MST instances to send some VLANs on the A path and some on the B path. So, I premap all VLANs like so: spanning-tree mst configuration instance 1 vlan 1-4094 And I'm done. I don't pre-create VLANs. Creating a VLAN doesn't cause a hit. It is changing the mapping above that causes the hit. Since I'm not trying to spread VLANs out across 2 instances to balance traffic, I don't ever need to change the mapping (hopefully). But I do agree with the poster who mentioned that the CST root MUST be on the MST side. That one has bitten me before when trying to bridge a VLAN between the old PVST network and the new Nexus MST network for migration purposes. ___ 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] Loopback IP set to .255 - 6500 responds to ICMP echo-request from wrong interface
I have always avoided .0 and .255 as well, however a few months back I noticed that Amazon ec2 is assigning .0 addresses to servers. My own personal VPS has a .0 public elastic/static IP and seems to work fine. I figure that if they're using .0 at their large scale, surely it can't be too bad. I have since begun using .0 again within my network and haven't run into an issue yet. I don't know that I've specifically used it as a loopback on a router though. ___ 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] Loopback IP set to .255 - 6500 responds to ICMP echo-request from wrong interface
Hi, been using .0 and .255 addresses (in the proper class-less places eg in middle of a /23 ) for years now. any kit or system that cannot handlesuch addresses as being client/end-station addresses should be dumped onto the recycling pile and got rid of (its likely that such kit cannot do IPv6 either.) alan ___ 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] Loopback IP set to .255 - 6500 responds to ICMP echo-request from wrong interface
And returned for full credit and msrp. Jared Mauch On Jan 6, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Alan Buxey a.l.m.bu...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: Hi, been using .0 and .255 addresses (in the proper class-less places eg in middle of a /23 ) for years now. any kit or system that cannot handlesuch addresses as being client/end-station addresses should be dumped onto the recycling pile and got rid of (its likely that such kit cannot do IPv6 either.) alan ___ 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] Nexus 7000 MPLS
At 01:37 AM 1/6/2012, Phil Mayers noted: On 01/06/2012 07:26 AM, Tim Stevenson wrote: Correct. No EoMPLS, no VPLS as yet, it's roadmapped. Tim, do you happen to know / can you tell us if the L2 MPLS features will be covered by the same feature license, or will people have to shell out for an MPLS2 feature license? Current plan of record is the L2VPN feature set will fall under the existing license. Of course, I am neither a PM nor the person with whom the buck stops, so this is perfectly subject to change prior to shipping those features. Thanks, Tim ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsphttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ Tim Stevenson, tstev...@cisco.com Routing Switching CCIE #5561 Distinguished Technical Marketing Engineer, Cisco Nexus 7000 Cisco - http://www.cisco.com IP Phone: 408-526-6759 The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential* and are intended for the specified recipients only. ___ 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/
