Re: [c-nsp] WS-X6748-SFP support

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:58:46AM +0930, Peter Koleff wrote: > > If you intend on using the X6748 on non-PFC3 Sup, such as Sup2T (PFC4), I > believe you'll need to add a DFC4 daughter card, ie WS-F6K-DFC4-A, or look > at C6800-48P-SFP. X6748-SFP will run just fine on Sup2T with CFC.

Re: [c-nsp] WS-X6748-SFP support

Hi Chris, Chris Knipe wrote: > Sup2T/6T may be beneficial If you intend on using the X6748 on non-PFC3 Sup, such as Sup2T (PFC4), I believe you'll need to add a DFC4 daughter card, ie WS-F6K-DFC4-A, or look at C6800-48P-SFP. Regards, Peter On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Chris Knipe

Re: [c-nsp] Route processor memory at 99% on 720-3bxl

On 21/06/16 23:48, Saku Ytti wrote: > soft-reconfigure inbound will save some memory. But you're not really > missing anything, 1GB is just not that comfortable amount of > control-plane memory for full-table routing. Biggest gain you'll see > is going back to 12.2S series. But you need to plan to

[c-nsp] ASR9k - IPoE termination

Hi, We're testing IPoE termination on ASR9ks and ran into a small, but annoying issue. Our subs will terminate on PW-Eth interfaces, that ultimately connect to a L2 broadcast domain (access network, this is not something we can change). So when there are two BNGs attached to the same broadcast

Re: [c-nsp] Route processor memory at 99% on 720-3bxl

On 22 June 2016 at 01:01, chiel wrote: Hey, '> We have already relocated the CEF so tcam can can hold more ipv4 routes. But > the problem the last couple of weeks has been the RP memory. At this moment > its on 99% utilization of the max 1GB that the 720-3bxl can hold! On short

[c-nsp] Route processor memory at 99% on 720-3bxl

Hi, We got a 6500 with a 720-3bxl running s72033-advipservicesk9-mz.151-2.SY7.bin. Devices is has to do some basic routing/switching with full BGP. - 1x IPv4 full ebgp router with 585172 prefixes and a ibgp with 216827 prefixes. - 1x IPv6 full ebgp with 28013 prefixes and ibgp with 30104

Re: [c-nsp] WS-X6748-SFP support

Thanks for all the chip in guys :-) Did read quite a bit about them on Cisco - just wanted to make sure / get some real life confirmations. Sup2T/6T may be beneficial (later) for 10G uplinks (which is -E only as far as I read/understand), but shouldn't be required for a while - at least not

Re: [c-nsp] Private IP in point to point link on internet

>> I'm not 100 percent sure how it breaks the path discovery, I would love to >> test this too, as we have a few of these setups in place. > > > The issue is that many routers, when the need arises to fragment packets, > will send back an icmp 'fragmentation needed' message, *from the source ip >

Re: [c-nsp] WS-X6748-SFP support

Chris Knipe wrote: > Will a X6748-SFP work on the normal 6506 (not -E) with a SUP720 or > similar? yes. On a not-6513, it can be put into any slot and it can be used for either l2 or l3, although it won't support vpls PE. It's a dual 20G channel card, which is why it will only run on slots 9-13

Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 (24SZ-M) 10Gb ports...not dual rate?

Correct the 10G Ports on the high density 24 port ASR920 models are not dual rate. -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of CiscoNSP List Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:29 AM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] ASR920

[c-nsp] WS-X6748-SFP support

Hi, Quick question... Will a X6748-SFP work on the normal 6506 (not -E) with a SUP720 or similar? I'm not too interested in L3 features, it will mostly be L2 operations on the units. If there will be L3, it will mostly be OSPF distributing connected routes and receiving only a default, so not

Re: [c-nsp] Private IP in point to point link on internet

On 21/Jun/16 21:42, Mike wrote: > > > The issue is that many routers, when the need arises to fragment > packets, will send back an icmp 'fragmentation needed' message, *from > the source ip address of the interface that was traversed*. So, if you > have a p2p link with your end being

Re: [c-nsp] Private IP in point to point link on internet

I have never come across a command that lets you change the source ip / interface of the ICMP messages on a cisco router. It usually chooses the interface it was received on, which is the outgoing interface in the RPF -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp

Re: [c-nsp] Private IP in point to point link on internet

I do have public Interface on that router but how do we tell them use "Public IP" for ICMP unreachable? On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Mike wrote: > On 06/21/2016 07:37 AM, Nick Cutting wrote: >> >> We have a few providers in HK who deliver our public

Re: [c-nsp] Private IP in point to point link on internet

On 06/21/2016 07:37 AM, Nick Cutting wrote: We have a few providers in HK who deliver our public /24's via a /30 RFC 1918 Address. I'm not 100 percent sure how it breaks the path discovery, I would love to test this too, as we have a few of these setups in place. The issue is that many

Re: [c-nsp] Private IP in point to point link on internet

On 06/21/2016 06:07 AM, Satish Patel wrote: You have a point, what if I increase MTP size to 9000 on that point to point interface? You mean, mtu size? Well, it's not likely to help you with anything, since you are only receiving Internet thru it. Mike

Re: [c-nsp] Private IP in point to point link on internet

We have a few providers in HK who deliver our public /24's via a /30 RFC 1918 Address. I'm not 100 percent sure how it breaks the path discovery, I would love to test this too, as we have a few of these setups in place. It is very annoying for other reasons, i.e remotely managing the router on

Re: [c-nsp] Private IP in point to point link on internet

You have a point, what if I increase MTP size to 9000 on that point to point interface? -- Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 21, 2016, at 1:10 AM, Mike > wrote: > >> On 06/20/2016 07:52 PM, Satish Patel wrote: >> This is weird question but i thought let me

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS on ASR1000 - Ping mpls returns 'QQQQQ'

I'm not sure that hundreds of lines or configs are required, just a snippet. Are you using OAM per chance, have you checked what OAM says about this link? Cheers, James. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS on ASR1000 - Ping mpls returns 'QQQQQ'

On 06/21/2016 12:14 AM, James Bensley wrote: On 21 June 2016 at 00:06, Mike wrote: sh mpls l2transport vc detail ... Last error: MPLS dataplane reported a fault to the nexthop Output interface: none, imposed label stack {} Preferred path:

[c-nsp] ASR920 (24SZ-M) 10Gb ports...not dual rate?

Hi Everyone, Just tried inserting a 1G SFP into one of the 4 10Gb ports on one of our ASR920's, and got the following error: Jun 21 2016 14:30:13.036 GMTWA: %TRANSCEIVER-6-INSERTED: SIP0: iomd: transceiver module inserted in TenGigabitEthernet0/0/25 Jun 21 2016 14:30:18.076 GMTWA:

Re: [c-nsp] BGP blackhole community config

On 21/Jun/16 09:17, Gert Doering wrote: > Only if used on BGP export. Yes, I clarified this after Oli's message as well. This is our issue - we need it for export, which is where it does not work. Cisco promised to develop a feature for this back in 2014, but to be fair, I have not followed

Re: [c-nsp] BGP blackhole community config

Hi, On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 08:45:06AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: > On 20/Jun/16 19:41, Jared Mauch wrote: > > > Tags are specific to Cisco, you should be using a community instead. > > We use tags on Juniper quite successfully. Makes it easy to introduce > static routes into iBGP. > > It irks

Re: [c-nsp] BGP blackhole community config

On 21/Jun/16 08:55, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote: > this is not entirely correct: Hey Oli. There you are. Long time no see :-). > > BGP routes don’t have a tag in Cisco’s implementation, so you can’t match > against a tag when a route-map controls BGP path advertisements. You can use >

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS on ASR1000 - Ping mpls returns 'QQQQQ'

On 21 June 2016 at 00:06, Mike wrote: > sh mpls l2transport vc detail ... > Last error: MPLS dataplane reported a fault to the nexthop > Output interface: none, imposed label stack {} > Preferred path: not configured > Default path: no route >

Re: [c-nsp] BGP blackhole community config

On 20/Jun/16 19:41, Jared Mauch wrote: >> Tags are specific to Cisco, you should be using a community instead. >We use tags on Juniper quite successfully. Makes it easy to introduce >static routes into iBGP. >It irks me that Cisco does not support this. > > You can use something like

Re: [c-nsp] BGP blackhole community config

On 20/Jun/16 19:41, Jared Mauch wrote: > Tags are specific to Cisco, you should be using a community instead. We use tags on Juniper quite successfully. Makes it easy to introduce static routes into iBGP. It irks me that Cisco does not support this. > > You can use something like

Re: [c-nsp] BGP blackhole community config

On 20/Jun/16 19:38, Satish Patel wrote: > I have tried that too and got this error. > > R1(config-router)#neighbor xx.xx.xx.xx route-map RTBH out > % "RTBH" used as BGP outbound route-map, tag match not supported > % not supported match will behave as route-map with no match >