On 7/8/2013 8:28 AM, Chris Marget wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Ricardo Stella wrote:
Ok my math is off and got curious... It would be 6 gig ports.
Yes. So a 48 port blade would require 8 RJ21 connectors, which is not
unprecedented: http://bit.ly/156LDdK
I'm not saying it's not crow
On (2013-07-08 22:01 +0200), Mark Tinka wrote:
> As long as no one gets ideas to bring back source routing of
> old a la "ip source-route" :-).
Isn't any divergence from SPF type of source routing? I.e. any form of
MPLS-TE, including RSVP? And as such desirable quality in many corner cases
(mayb
I have been looking over those drafts and like what I see thus far, makes
perfect sense. Too bad it didn't exist 4 years ago. :)
Phil
On 7/8/13 11:31 AM, "Saku Ytti" wrote:
>On (2013-07-08 17:14 +0200), Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>> We, at the time, opted to wait for IP LFA since RSVP-TE in
>> the A
On Monday, July 08, 2013 08:22:49 PM Phil Bedard wrote:
> It really depends on how things are deployed and how
> distributed they are. We distribute the larger
> aggregation nodes to various sites and then generally
> have access rings with access nodes hung off of those.
> We typically do not ha
On Monday, July 08, 2013 05:31:49 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
> Even tLDP needed for rLFA is less than desirable,
> additional states seemingly arbitrarily signalled up and
> down.
By the time I left $previous_job, LFA was barely coming
online in Junos, let alone mature or young IOS. So we opted
to wai
No, just static routes in this environment. And I'm running a version that is
already supposedly fixed, 9.1(2) as this was fixed in 9.1(1.1), But thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Soares [mailto:amsoa...@netcabo.pt]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:46 AM
To: Abello, Vinny; cisco-nsp
On 7/8/13 11:14 AM, "Mark Tinka" wrote:
>On Monday, July 08, 2013 12:33:36 PM Phil Bedard wrote:
>
>> XR supports it in the latest revision, didn't know about
>> the 3600 support. I guess this is the C-NSP list. We
>> have thousands of non-Cisco nodes deployed using RSVP-TE
>> in the access lay
On (2013-07-08 17:14 +0200), Mark Tinka wrote:
> We, at the time, opted to wait for IP LFA since RSVP-TE in
> the Access (even just to the adjacent PE routers) just
> didn't look administratively feasible, let alone scale :-).
Even tLDP needed for rLFA is less than desirable, additional states
On Monday, July 08, 2013 12:33:36 PM Phil Bedard wrote:
> XR supports it in the latest revision, didn't know about
> the 3600 support. I guess this is the C-NSP list. We
> have thousands of non-Cisco nodes deployed using RSVP-TE
> in the access layer but it requires stitching at the
> service laye
Are you running OSPF ? If yes, check this bug:
http://tools.cisco.com/Support/BugToolKit/search/getBugDetails.do?method=fet
chBugDetails&bugId=CSCuc12967
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (R&S/SP)
amsoa...@netcabo.pt
http://www.ccie18473.net
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mai
On Jul 8, 2013, at 7:12 AM, Chris Marget wrote:
> I've often lamented that Cisco no longer ships blades with RJ21
> connectors. I worked in a couple of shops where tens of thousands of
> user ports used this type of line card, and there were no cable
> management problems at the face of the switc
Hi all,
I have a bizarre situation that isn't making sense to me.
I have two ASA 5585-X firewalls with SSP-10. They are in an Active/Standby
configuration and running in multi-context mode. I have replication of state
information between them working just fine. We're running both IPv4 and IPv6
Hi,
> We ran cables left and right, but all servers was channel bonded
> (split between left & right), so we could remove all cables required
> and replace the fan tray without any disruption. Took a ton of work
> though :-(
we have VSS pairs so the remote links are dual linked (or more) to
each
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Ricardo Stella wrote:
>
> Ok my math is off and got curious... It would be 6 gig ports.
Yes. So a 48 port blade would require 8 RJ21 connectors, which is not
unprecedented: http://bit.ly/156LDdK
I'm not saying it's not crowded, just that it's better (IMO) than 48
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 01:01:32PM +, Alan Buxey wrote:
> Interesting kit. Regarding fan unit - have had plenty of blade/sup swaps
> and failures. .. no fan tray (now I've said that. ..) the only time we
> had a fan swap was for a wholesale upgrade to e-series so ALL kit got taken
Rj21 has 50 pins, ie 25 pairs. You'll get 4 gig ports out of one.
---
°(((=((===°°°(((
On Jul 8, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Chris Marget wrote:
> I've often lamented that Cisco no longer ships blades with RJ21
> connectors. I worked in a couple of shop
Ok my math is off and got curious... It would be 6 gig ports.
From Wikipedia..
RJ21 connectors are used to connect Ethernet ports in bulk from a switch with
RJ21 ports to a CAT-5 rated patch panel, or between two patch panels. A cable
with an RJ21 connector on one end can support 6 fully wir
I have to replace a faulty fan tray on a *almost* fully populated 6513
(10/100/1000 line cards). That, was fun, I tell you.
We ran cables left and right, but all servers was channel bonded
(split between left & right), so we could remove all cables required
and replace the fan tray without any di
I've often lamented that Cisco no longer ships blades with RJ21
connectors. I worked in a couple of shops where tens of thousands of
user ports used this type of line card, and there were no cable
management problems at the face of the switch.
I don't see any technical reason to have abandoned thi
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 08:47:38AM -0400, Chris Marget wrote:
> If cables are run to the left, how do you deal with a failed fan module?
"lots of spitting and cursing"
(There's just no way to get "everything perfect" - if you have a chassis
full of 48port-copper-modules, the amount of cablin
Interesting kit. Regarding fan unit - have had plenty of blade/sup swaps and
failures. .. no fan tray (now I've said that. ..) the only time we had a
fan swap was for a wholesale upgrade to e-series so ALL kit got taken out.
alan
___
cisco-nsp ma
Some cable management products for 6500 have a solid plate which
forces all cables to run right. Like this one:
http://bit.ly/1d9Rgej
If cables are run to the left, how do you deal with a failed fan module?
My preference is to use Panduit Plugpacks (http://bit.ly/10ID89A) at
the front of the swit
On Monday, July 08, 2013 12:57:39 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
> I don't feel I'm in the position to make the decision for
> my customer when they should be able to receive unstable
> route and when not.
I am of a similar view.
I never supported RFD way back then (despite the fact that
with our old sate
You also get a V-E chassis which has the modules vertically, and a cable
manager fanning the cables out.
--
ian
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Alan
Buxey
Sent: 08 July 2013 13:21
To: Jon Lewis; chris stand
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.n
We use cable management bars and route all cables to the left and right thus
ensuring that we don't have cables blocking the removal of a failed module or a
module that needs swapping out for upgrade. Would recommend wider racks for
such locations . You have more space to each side and often con
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, chris stand wrote:
Does anyone mount 6500s directly under the patch panels ? If you do, do
the cables run to the left and right and would you share a photo or two ?
I've run cables in from both sides. You can get cable management bars
that rack mount on top of the 6500 c
XR supports it in the latest revision, didn't know about the 3600
support. I guess this is the C-NSP list. We have thousands of non-Cisco
nodes deployed using RSVP-TE in the access layer but it requires
stitching at the service layer to scale. It has shown to be scalable at
least for us.
One thing
Does anyone mount 6500s directly under the patch panels ? If you do, do
the cables run to the left and right and would you share a photo or two ?
Thank you,
Chris
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/lis
On (2013-07-08 13:57 +0300), Saku Ytti wrote:
> I think it was bit early of RIPE to make new recommendation pretty much
> immediately as the RFC came out.
This should read 'as the draft came out'.
--
++ytti
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck
On (2013-07-08 12:25 +0200), Mark Tinka wrote:
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-580
> That's the ongoing work.
I think it was bit early of RIPE to make new recommendation pretty much
immediately as the RFC came out.
Rationale was 'no one objected in the list'. I guess by that logic, it
I'm sorry I should have made myself clear on this, I meant Inter-AS MPLS
where one ISP owns all ASNs
Otherwise yes I agree, optA is the only solution, so far..
adam
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Saku
Ytti
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2
On Monday, July 08, 2013 10:47:47 AM Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
> Yeah I remember I read some article basically saying you
> know the whole thing of punishment being worse than the
> crime thing, well it's not quite as we though it is.
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-580
That's the ongoing
On Monday, July 08, 2013 11:23:25 AM Saku Ytti wrote:
> I've never seen anything but OptA in inter-AS MPLS NNI.
> OptB would be great, but as per previous mail, lack of
> security excludes it. OptC I've only seen in shops doing
> BGP confed et (euch).
Yes, or M&A's.
Mark.
signature.asc
Descrip
Hi list
I am new to QinQ.
Any idea about QinQ basic configuration for testing CDP, Spanning, MTU etc
which r connected to different switches.
Ami
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-n
On Monday, July 08, 2013 09:49:50 AM Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
> Yes I'm interested in the full blown NG-MVPN with x-PMSI
> MP2MP/P2MP MLDP with BGP-AD, though right now I'd be
> thankful for any mLDP support, but for that I guess I'd
> have to wait about a year or so. And I hope the -CX
> platform is
On Monday, July 08, 2013 05:04:18 AM Gordon Smith wrote:
> I'd be reluctant to expose my control plane out to a
> CPE
>
> To provide redundancy & L2VPN services, LACP + 802.1ad
> would suffice, and would allow you to keep the MPLS
> control plane in equipment you have absolute control
> ove
On (2013-07-08 12:19 +0300), Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2013-07-08 10:33 +0200), Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
> > since the advent of RFC 3107 and is how any big scale inter-as MPLS opt10C
> > should have been deployed.
>
> OptC has been undeployable for most of its history, just recently IOS-XR
Gaah I m
On (2013-07-08 10:33 +0200), Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
> Well Hierarchical MPLS now with a fancy name Unified MPLS has been around
> since the advent of RFC 3107 and is how any big scale inter-as MPLS opt10C
> should have been deployed.
OptC has been undeployable for most of its history, just recent
>> You could try to enable bgp dampening.
>No jokes, this is coming back into the industry :-).
Yeah I remember I read some article basically saying you know the whole
thing of punishment being worse than the crime thing, well it's not quite as
we though it is.
adam
_
Well Hierarchical MPLS now with a fancy name Unified MPLS has been around
since the advent of RFC 3107 and is how any big scale inter-as MPLS opt10C
should have been deployed.
I believe now with BGP PIC and IP FRR Cisco added a very appealing factor to
it for people who do not necessarily depend o
>Or IP FRR If you aren't in a ring scenario which breaks it.
Not anymore, XR and XE and I believe the newest me-3600 code also does
support IP FRR with Remote-LFA which solves the LFA inequality problem in
ring topologies. And XR supports te-tunnel to be selected as backup
interface allowing you t
>> Oh by the way does anybody know when the mLDP is going to be supported
>> on ME3600 please?
>Which mLDP? Full NG-MVPN mLDP or normal MDT-based mLDP?
Yes I'm interested in the full blown NG-MVPN with x-PMSI MP2MP/P2MP MLDP
with BGP-AD, though right now I'd be thankful for any mLDP support, bu
42 matches
Mail list logo
