Re: [c-nsp] me3600 me3800 EFP limits

Brian, ME3800X has higher scale that’s why the scale numbers are different from ME3600X. ME3800X is positioned for Pre-Agg hence higher scale. ME36800X/ME3600X supports multi dimensional scale so number of Xconnect should not be impacted by the number of EFPs. EFP Maximum number is 4K however

[c-nsp] Cisco CSR1000v as an LNS

Hi all, Does anyone know if the Cisco CSR1000v can act as a LNS/LAC and what license level it would be under. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd ske...@eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

Re: [c-nsp] CRS PRP management eth interface limits

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Adam, all On 12/08/14 17:39, Vitkovský Adam wrote: Hello Valeriu, I think that even for Management Ethernet ports - these limits are controlled by the LPTS process. However on ASR9k I'm not able to view or change the policers for the

Re: [c-nsp] me3600 me3800 EFP limits

Thanks Waris, Got it I was mistakenly applying the overall xconnect limit to the EFPs. Best Regards Brian From: Waris Sagheer (waris) [mailto:wa...@cisco.com] Sent: venerdì 29 agosto 2014 09:02 To: b.turn...@twt.it; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Cc: Ramji Vasudevan (ramji) Subject: Re:

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS to Customer (Option B) / Multiple VRFs on CPEs

On 28 August 2014 20:35, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: Dare I say it what access/agg layer boxes (such as ME3x00) from Cisco will perform QoS deeper than one MPLS label? ASR9001 certainly. I'm not sure what ME3x00 could in theory do, it does not seem hard for me to think it could classify

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS to Customer (Option B) / Multiple VRFs on CPEs

Yeah I new the ASR9K could fo it but nothing smaller I know of. Yes our ME3x00's are happy to QoS to one label although I was thinking of MPLS down to CPE with AToM L2VPNs so a 2nd label is required; perhaps a method of copying the EXP from the bottom label to the top label so it can become

[c-nsp] IOS to IOS-XR convertor tool

I know it was asked many years ago (anwser then was no), but does there exist such a tool either publically or internally inside Cisco? Thanks, Hank ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] IOS to IOS-XR convertor tool

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:06:05 +0300 Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.il wrote: I know it was asked many years ago (anwser then was no), but does there exist such a tool either publically or internally inside Cisco? I have an old, and really hacky hybrid2native.pl script I wrote while I was at

[c-nsp] ASR1K upgrade

The ASR1001 bundles have this little proviso that says if you buy the 2.5G bundle, you cannot upgrade to the 5G license. this seems silly on the face of it. Has anyone done this in practice? ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] CRS PRP management eth interface limits

MGMT E is for Management, not traffic. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Valeriu Vraciu vvra...@iasi.roedu.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Adam, all On 12/08/14 17:39, Vitkovský Adam wrote: Hello Valeriu, I think that even for Management Ethernet ports

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1K upgrade

Do you have a link for that. This seems to totally contradict a number of other statements. FLS-ASR1001-5G is specifically to upgrade a 2.5G to 5G. https://supportforums.cisco.com/discussion/11348506/asr-1001-licence-activation

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS to Customer (Option B) / Multiple VRFs on CPEs

Two labels QOS will work fine since bottom label EXP is copied to the top label so there should not be any issues with the QOS in this case if you are using ME family. I have put uRPF in the roadmap on ASR920 but I need customer names since it is required for feature request. I would appreciate

Re: [c-nsp] CRS PRP management eth interface limits

Hello Valeriu, So increasing the global per flow limits did not help? I'm pretty sure management ports are protected by the LPTS as well. There just doesn't seem to be any way of altering or viewing the default limits. adam -Original Message- From: Valeriu Vraciu

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS to Customer (Option B) / Multiple VRFs on CPEs

Hi James, I would recommend Option C + RFC3107. That is couple of MP-eBGP sessions from CE to local RRs and RFC3107 to carry loopbacks and their particular labels between PEs and CEs (No LDP). BGP sessions will be protected so that customer can not inject false prefixes or labels should the

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS to Customer (Option B) / Multiple VRFs on CPEs

On Aug 30, 2014, at 4:54 AM, Waris Sagheer (waris) wa...@cisco.com wrote: Why cannot use Tunk interface where vlan can be differentiator and limit the sessions to 200- 300? This is something I was wondering, as well . . .