Re: [c-nsp] ASR1006 Netflow default sample rate

On 6 Jan 2017, at 10:27, Satish Patel wrote: This is my configuration, nothing fancy. OK, so change the sampling rate to something you like/need per your situationally-specific needs. Your active timer is set to 60s, which is good. Set the inactive one to 5s. Maybe try the v9 default

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1006 Netflow default sample rate

I came across with this link and it saying default sample rate 1 https://www.plixer.com/blog/netflow/how-to-configure-netflow-on-the-cisco-asr/ This is my configuration, nothing fancy. flow record netflow-record match ipv4 destination address match ipv4 source address match transport

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1006 Netflow default sample rate

On 6 Jan 2017, at 6:48, Satish Patel wrote: > Any thought? On a smaller box like the 1K, it's likely to be 1:1, yes? Have you set the active timer to 60s, and the inactive timer to 5s? --- Roland Dobbins

Re: [c-nsp] 2 port 100 gig module - ASR9000

On 05/01/17 21:55, Aaron wrote: > Just want to make sure this is true that this (2) port 100 gig module > will work with A9K-RSP-4G Actually, I stand corrected; if Jared's suggestion wasn't enough, if you look at the A9K-RSP-4G data sheet, it lists all of the Typhoon line cards as being

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1006 Netflow default sample rate

Any thought? Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 4, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Satish Patel wrote: > > We are using Cisco ASR1k with netflow + nfsen we are seeing some add > number in nfsen aggregated data, and some folks saying it could be > sample rate issue. > > I haven't set any

Re: [c-nsp] 2 port 100 gig module - ASR9000

I would slide it in. If it doesn't work load 5.3.4. It will perform the best it can under those circumstances. Jared Mauch > On Jan 5, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Aaron wrote: > > What I'm trying to figure out is how to put this (2) port 100 gig module into > my existing asr9k

Re: [c-nsp] 2 port 100 gig module - ASR9000

What I'm trying to figure out is how to put this (2) port 100 gig module into my existing asr9k chassis *with as little changes as possible* Thanks for all the recommendations, but I really just want to know the bare minimum I *must* do to slide the module into the chassis and have it function.

Re: [c-nsp] 2 port 100 gig module - ASR9000

What RSP do you have? If it’s the older one, you will want to upgrade to use the card at full rate. If you are only expecting under 50% utilization you will likely be fine, but upgrading to RSP880 is recommended. Otherwise you may want to talk about a trade-in for the 55xx devices. If

Re: [c-nsp] 2 port 100 gig module - ASR9000

Thanks Adam, you lost me with that. Please elaborate. -Aaron -Original Message- From: adamv0...@netconsultings.com [mailto:adamv0...@netconsultings.com] Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 4:18 PM To: 'Aaron' ; 'Tom Hill' ; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net;

Re: [c-nsp] 2 port 100 gig module - ASR9000

I think cisco does these backwards compatible but it has only 80Gbps worth of fabric connections per slot so you'll may be able to get max ~160 if you disable the redundancy mode. netconsultings.com ::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry:: > -Original Message- >

Re: [c-nsp] 2 port 100 gig module - ASR9000

Thanks Tom and Jared, Copied from the cisco website. "The Cisco ASR 9000 Series 2-Port 100 Gigabit Ethernet Line Cards are fully compatible with all Cisco ASR 9000 Series chassis, route switch processors (RSPs), and line cards. No hardware upgrade to the chassis or cooling system is

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

Mohammad, If you look at the bottom of the document you will see that SR-TE is requiring IOS XE Everest 16.4.1. I had not seen this document, thanks - this answers my previous question about the same thing. Patrick Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 02:34:19PM +, Mohammad Khalil wrote: >I am using

Re: [c-nsp] 2 port 100 gig module - ASR9000

On 05/01/17 20:54, Aaron wrote: > I read below that they are fully compatible with > all Cisco ASR9000 chassis, rsp's and linecards, and no upgrades required to > chassis or cooling system. It's a Typhoon card, so needs a suitable supervisor. It won't work with the RSP-4G or RSP-8G, as far as I

Re: [c-nsp] 2 port 100 gig module - ASR9000

I would not run anything earlier than 5.3.4 these days personally. These are fine cards and work well. - jared > On Jan 5, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Aaron wrote: > > Is anyone using this or familiar with it ? > > > > If so, please let me know what the minimum RSP and IOS XR

[c-nsp] 2 port 100 gig module - ASR9000

Is anyone using this or familiar with it ? If so, please let me know what the minimum RSP and IOS XR versions required for both of these cards. I read below that they are fully compatible with all Cisco ASR9000 chassis, rsp's and linecards, and no upgrades required to chassis or cooling

Re: [c-nsp] iBGP as MPLS labeling protocol

Thanks for the useful comments. now the questions are: which one is better? using ibgp with RR or ebgp? consider a star topology which all spoke routers are connected to two hub routers ( I think in ibgp approach hub routers must be RR as well so all spokes can reach to each other via hubs)

Re: [c-nsp] iBGP as MPLS labeling protocol

Hi Daniel, > Daniel Verlouw > Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 9:25 PM > > Hi Adam, > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:35 AM, wrote: > > And this is the tricky part cause you might run into bugs with > > next-hop-self on iBGP session in combination with RFC3107 (no

Re: [c-nsp] Segment Routing

If you have an existing network running LDP/6PE for years and aren’t looking to do much else other than support basic MPLS services, there isn’t a whole lot of incentive to move to SPRING. At the end of the day SPRING is just another control-plane and piggybacks onto an existing routing

Re: [c-nsp] iBGP as MPLS labeling protocol

There are implementations of this using eBGP, mainly in datacenters, but you could maybe do the same thing with iBGP, NH manipulation, and RR. There was at least one router vendor I encountered in the past that required a BGP-LU route be resolved using some underlying tunnel type like