Re: [c-nsp] Cisco L2TP Failed

--- Begin Message --- Hard to tell without any debug or configuration from the other side. Causes could be missing tunnel authentication or l2tp hostname not matched by any configured group. I would expect other errors, but not able to test it at the moment. What kind of LNS is the peer?

Re: [c-nsp] policer on ASR1001X

Thanks, Lukasz. For clarity, my requests didn't fall on deaf ears. The local AM team escalated all the way to the TME's and BU heads in San Jose, and they gave the answer to move to the NCS540 because the ASR920 is on its way out. Very possible that things changed since then, which would be

Re: [c-nsp] policer on ASR1001X

Mark, I’m from a different BU, but overall - yes, I remember some of the discussions we’ve had in the past. I’m very sorry it turned out this way. Unfortunately, some of the decisions are not made on single-platform level, and I do get you’re frustrated because either there’s no one to talk

Re: [c-nsp] policer on ASR1001X

On 9/10/21 18:04, Lukasz Bromirski wrote: You may be talking about ASR 903/907, which indeed changed into NCS 540 (XR based) and NCS 560 (also XR based). No, I was asking for the ASR920. NCS 520 is IOS-XE based though given the positioning of the platform (access). Feature-wise,

Re: [c-nsp] policer on ASR1001X

Mark, > On 10 Sep 2021, at 17:57, Mark Tinka wrote: > > On 9/10/21 14:38, Saku Ytti wrote: > >> Didn't they just release next-gen catalyst switches and isr cpes >> (rebranded as catalyst?) with IOS-XE? > > It wouldn't be the first time Cisco had different camps competing for > direction,

Re: [c-nsp] policer on ASR1001X

On 9/10/21 17:50, Lukasz Bromirski wrote: IOS-XE is here to stay :) Indeed, there’s “dumbed down” version of it for SD-WAN, and they’re being slowly unified with normal IOS-XE being adopted to work in “centralized” (vs “autonomous”) mode. That’s not “autonomous” like with the Autonomic

Re: [c-nsp] policer on ASR1001X

On 9/10/21 14:38, Saku Ytti wrote: Didn't they just release next-gen catalyst switches and isr cpes (rebranded as catalyst?) with IOS-XE? It wouldn't be the first time Cisco had different camps competing for direction, internally. Some of the features I have asked for on IOS XE in the

Re: [c-nsp] policer on ASR1001X

Saku, Mark, > On 10 Sep 2021, at 14:38, Saku Ytti wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 14:53, Mark Tinka wrote: > >> With Cisco putting a lot more effort into IOS XR, I really wonder if the >> ASR1000 and other platforms based on IOS XE will be around in the >> medium-to-long term. > > Didn't

[c-nsp] Cisco L2TP Failed

I'm looking for a little bit of help on an L2TP error. I have a cisco 881 router which needs to make an L2TP connection, the conf: l2tp-class PW hostname C881 pseudowire-class L2TP l2tpv2 encapsulation protocol l2tpv2 PW local ip interface FastEthernet4 FastEthernet4 interface ip

Re: [c-nsp] policer on ASR1001X

On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 14:53, Mark Tinka wrote: > With Cisco putting a lot more effort into IOS XR, I really wonder if the > ASR1000 and other platforms based on IOS XE will be around in the > medium-to-long term. Didn't they just release next-gen catalyst switches and isr cpes (rebranded as

Re: [c-nsp] policer on ASR1001X

On 9/9/21 20:04, Saku Ytti wrote: Definitely no reason why ASR1k could not support it if you have leverage towards vendor. With Cisco putting a lot more effort into IOS XR, I really wonder if the ASR1000 and other platforms based on IOS XE will be around in the medium-to-long term.