Re: [c-nsp] transport path-mtu-discovery - ME3600....too unpredictable to use?

On 24/02/2016 10:33, Nick Cutting wrote: Im an enterprise guy, so this is what I see for our clients. I don't have exact info but if for example a TCP sessions stays up between two end hosts (whether they are routers or windows boxes whatever..) and a path changes from say a P2P to a routed

Re: [c-nsp] transport path-mtu-discovery - ME3600....too unpredictable to use?

On 24/02/2016 02:42, CiscoNSP List wrote: Hi Everyone, Quick synopsis of our network, multiple pops, all connected via various 3rd party carriers, who all use differing MTUs, that can also "change" unexpectedly(Unavoidable unfortunately!)...hence, we have a few options, disable transport

Re: [c-nsp] QinQ 4500X -> ME3600 and access(pop) multiple inner vlans

On 3 February 2016 at 06:05, CiscoNSP List wrote: Thanks Eric, > > We have no visibility into the remote end, but I have setup the following > on one of our ME's (Test service, that has supposedly been configured by > carrier, and remote end) > > Vlans are: > > 940

Re: [c-nsp] The Family of ASR902 - ASR903 - ASR907

On 28 October 2015 at 11:50, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > Hi Waris, > > > Waris Sagheer (waris) > > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 3:46 AM > > > > Hi Aaron and team, > > If there is an interest in the details of ASR903 RSP3, ASR907 RSP3, > ASR902 & > > ASR920 family,

Re: [c-nsp] LDP sessions established to non directly connected routers, when new link is activated

On 25 September 2015 at 11:45, CiscoNSP List wrote: > > >What do you mean by "disable ospf cost"? A link will always have a cost. > If you mean you just aren't setting it manually, then it will be figured > out automatically (depending on interface speed, auto-cost >

Re: [c-nsp] LDP sessions established to non directly connected routers, when new link is activated

On 25 September 2015 at 02:57, CiscoNSP List wrote: >> >> > > Have you turned on remote-lfa under OSPF? This will dynamically create targeted LDP sessions. > > > > Regards, > > > > Dan > > Hi Dan, > > Thanks - Yes we do: > > fast-reroute per-prefix remote-lfa area 0

Re: [c-nsp] LDP sessions established to non directly connected routers, when new link is activated

On 22 September 2015 at 23:59, CiscoNSP List wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > > > Bit of a strange one. > > > > 2 x ASR1001's (ASR1 and ASR2) directly connected (POPA), with OSPF, MPLS > and BGP established > > > > ASR1 connects to POPB (ME36001), also with OSPF, MPLS and BGP

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ME3600X MPLS OSPF balanced LSP, non LSP drop packets

On 15 September 2015 at 14:18, Brett . wrote: > My network has deployed mpls on ciscos on a trial basis on only a small > subsection of our network. > > I have a cisco tac case opened for the situation where Cisco ME3600X has > balanced path and is dropping traffic. > - in

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 920 - H-QoS across 2+ EFP interfaces

On 20 July 2015 at 18:51, Steve Margelos smarge...@atlantech.net wrote: Hello, I have an ASR 920 that I will be using to form an NNI with an upstream provider. We typically have customers that purchase not just an internet circuit, but also P2P/VPLS services all over the same single

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 920 - H-QoS across 2+ EFP interfaces

Hi Steve, Try using 'match service instance ethernet service_instance_id' under a match-any class-map for as many service instances that you want to group together - this should give you something similar to the Juniper interface-set concept. You can then reference this under a policy-map

Re: [c-nsp] OSPF per-prefix LFA

On 2 June 2015 at 11:26, Mohammad Khalil eng_m...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Got your point :) regarding tunning , is there a was to judge the values that should be in place with affecting performance ? Mohammed, This is a useful resource: http://blog.ine.com/2010/06/02/ospf-fast-convergenc/

Re: [c-nsp] OSPF per-prefix LFA

On 28 May 2015 at 12:24, Mohammad Khalil eng_m...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi all I am trying to test the feature My topology consists of three routers (one of them is CSR1000v) and the other two are 3725 all simulated via GNS3 R1(CSR) is connected to R2 and R3 , there is a direct connection as

Re: [c-nsp] OSPF per-prefix LFA

On 28 May 2015 at 13:43, Mohammad Khalil eng_m...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Dan , carrier-delay did not do the trick for me George , I have configured the below router ospf 1 timers throttle spf 777 888 999 And , yes it made a difference :) Now , the question in my mind is that if I changed

Re: [c-nsp] OSPF per-prefix LFA

On 28 May 2015 at 13:17, Mohammad Khalil eng_m...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Now , the main link is active again with hello/dead intervals adjsuted CSR#sh ip ospf interface gigabitEthernet 1 | inc Dead Timer intervals configured, Hello 1, Dead 4, Wait 4, Retransmit 5 R2#sh ip ospf int f0/0 |

Re: [c-nsp] OSPF per-prefix LFA

On 28 May 2015 at 14:28, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk wrote: Hi Dan, Dan Peachey Sent: 28 May 2015 13:02 If you don't see any RPR route, you may also need to force prefix-priority of loopbacks to high with something like: Prefixes with /32 should automatically be high

Re: [c-nsp] OSPF per-prefix LFA

On 28 May 2015 at 14:43, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk wrote: Hi Mohammad, I have never had to tune IGP to get sub 50ms LFA failover times. The failover times have nothing to do with IGP. Actually the switchover itself (from primary to backup path) is done in couple of usec

Re: [c-nsp] IOS XR / advertise best-external

On 19 May 2015 7:54 am, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk wrote: Dan Peachey Sent: 18 May 2015 22:04 On 18 May 2015 9:40 pm, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote: Hi, On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 09:23:50PM +0100, Dan Peachey wrote: If that's the case I find

Re: [c-nsp] IOS XR / advertise best-external

On 18 May 2015 9:40 pm, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote: Hi, On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 09:23:50PM +0100, Dan Peachey wrote: If that's the case I find it strange why that's now the default behaviour. Surely that's the point of 'additional-paths' to control what routes you want

Re: [c-nsp] IOS XR / advertise best-external

On 18 May 2015 7:21 am, Marian Ďurkovič m...@bts.sk wrote: On Sun, 17 May 2015 13:48:42 +0200, Gert Doering wrote RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:Cisco-F-X#sh cef 194.97.129.1 Sat May 16 23:26:20.777 MEDST 194.97.129.1/32, version 76418887, internal 0x1401 (ptr 0xa1045a14) [1], 0x0 (0x0), 0x0 (0x0)

Re: [c-nsp] IOS XR / advertise best-external

On 17 May 2015 9:48 pm, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote: Hi, On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 08:40:08PM +0100, Dan Peachey wrote: IOS XR 4.3.4SP6 on ASR9001. [..] I have used this in the past on ASR9001 which was running 4.3.4 SP1 IIRC. Unfortunately I don't have access

Re: [c-nsp] IOS XR / advertise best-external

On 17 May 2015 12:50 pm, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote: Hiya, looking for some explanation or a pointer to documentation. I thought I knew what bgp advertise best-external would do, namely: if BGP has multiple paths and the standard BGP best path is internal, find out what *would*

Re: [c-nsp] Internet in VRF

Yeah the terms PIC edge and core are really confusing and I'll try to avoid those. But what I meant by PIC edge was essentially PE-CE link protection and by PIC core I meant PE-CE node protection. They both rely on BGP PIC. And by PIC I mean the FIB hierarchy (where indirect next hop is

Re: [c-nsp] Internet in VRF

I don't know why PIC would be required - I don't see any need for sub-second convergence of Internet prefixes (and more than a single FIB entry for an Internet prefix). I'm sure someone will come along with a use case... :) Not sure what the exact numbers for ASR9k are but on MX960 It

Re: [c-nsp] Internet in VRF

I guess PIC edge is more important as it provides fast failover (local-repair) towards the PE with alternate AS-Exit in case the link providing the primary AS-Exit fails, so while the BGP converges slowly and majority of the PEs are still forwarding traffic towards the node acting as

Re: [c-nsp] Internet in VRF

On 5 May 2015 at 10:02, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk wrote: Mark Tinka Sent: 04 May 2015 21:21 We don’t run Internet in a VRF, we have no real use cases where we can’t control what we need through policy. Our core infrastructure isn’t accessible from our customers

Re: [c-nsp] Internet in VRF

On 5 May 2015 at 11:24, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk wrote: Hi Dan, Dan Peachey Sent: 05 May 2015 10:51 On 5 May 2015 at 10:02, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk wrote: Mark Tinka Sent: 04 May 2015 21:21 We don’t run Internet in a VRF

[c-nsp] CSR1000v as an IPSLA probe

Hi, Is anyone using a CSR1000v VM as an IPSLA probe? If so I would like to hear your experiences with it. I'm currently evaluating it and have come out with some poor test results so far, with the main issue being tail dropped packets when CPU utilisation is above ~30%. Regards, Dan

Re: [c-nsp] 12.2(33)SRCx - Pseudo Pre-emption Handler - BFD Bug

On Friday 27 February 2009 12:27:14 am Raymond, Steven wrote: Ah. We haven't seen any reboots, but this is on sup720 not NPE. We are probably experiencing different defects. Well, according to TAC, the 7600 is unaffected by this particular bug. Cheers, Mark. I've had

Re: [c-nsp] 12.2(33)SRCx - Pseudo Pre-emption Handler - BFD Bug

Hi all. Is there anyone else still seeing this bug even with 12.2(33)SRC3, where Cisco say they have it fixed? We recently saw an NPE-G1 reboot because of this. We've since re-engaged the workaround (disabling BFD) until we hear more from TAC. This bug is very annoying... Cheers,

[c-nsp] BGP NHT on 7600 SRC2

Hi, I am testing BGP next-hop tracking on SRC2 code release for the 7600. I have a pretty simple setup as follows: PE1 - P1 --- | / || | RR1 | PE3 | \ || PE2 - P2 --- PE1 and 2 are 7600's running 12.2(18)SXF5. RR1 is a 7204VXR running