Re: [c-nsp] LDP label allocation modes

Hi, With LDP Juniper (and everyone else) does downstream unsolicited and ordered (with some hacks) control, same for Redback, Huawei I believe does independent. Cheers, Jeff > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon Duksa

Re: [c-nsp] Running MPLS across non-MPLS networks

L2TPv3? > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Schwimer > Sent: dinsdag 2 september 2008 19:23 > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: [c-nsp] Running MPLS across non-MPLS networks > > I have a situation where I need to r

Re: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing

cast: P2MP RSVP, mLDP, NG mVPN, you name it. Cheers, Jeff _ From: Muarwi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: dinsdag 2 september 2008 4:49 To: Jeff Tantsura Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing Hi Jeff, thanks a lot for your resp

Re: [c-nsp] Interdomain Multicast Routing

Hi, The combination you've described has been working for many years, very well tested, supported by all major vendors. PIM (bidir as well) is used for intradomain multicast routing independently of interdomain multicast (MSDP/MBGP). Cisco does support PIM Bidir Cheers, Jeff P.S. Best book ev

Re: [c-nsp] difference between "bandwidth" and "priority" command inpolicy

Hi Tim, These commands behave differently: Once again, "priority " would police only in case of congestion while "priority + police rate" would police on rate configured. Regards, Jeff > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of

Re: [c-nsp] IOS JUNOS MPLS-TE interoperability

Hi Oliver, Could you please elaborate more on the interop issue? Thanks, Jeff > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) > Sent: donderdag 5 juni 2008 9:11 > To: Rubens Kuhl Jr.; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net;

Re: [c-nsp] difference between "bandwidth" and "priority" commandinpolicy

Hi, It is also important to understand the difference between loose and strict policers for priority queue See inline > [1] this can either be configured as: > > class X > priority Here you'd police only in case of congestion > or > > class X > priority > police rate > While here you

Re: [c-nsp] Source failure in PIM SSM

Hi, I don't think there's much more than that, any other technology would be some kind of prioritycast, it's just about how to make one route more preferable than the other, different metrics, different prefix length etc. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- >

Re: [c-nsp] OSPF router gets separated from a broadcast domain

Hi, It is not as difficult as you might think, imagine VPLS in between and incorrect LSP's setup :) > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher E. Brown > Sent: maandag 4 februari 2008 5:14 > To: Gabor Ivanszky > Cc: cisco

Re: [c-nsp] RTBH - anyone using this?

Or make it multihop. I got bitten by this many years ago (on both cisco and juniper) but it seems that till now documentation hasn't been changed to reflect it. If you are going to allow your customers to use it (usually done with communities) be sure to filter accordingly, so the customers'd blac

[c-nsp] How 7600 hashes the downstream multicast traffic over etherchannel?

Hi, Does anyone know how 7600 hashes the downstream multicast traffic over etherchannel? In some docs it is 1 dedicated port, in other it is src/dst IP or MAC hash Many thanks!! Regards, Jeff ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] Multicast over VPLS

Hi, Daisy-chained H-VPLS. Regards, Jeff > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: donderdag 29 november 2007 19:30 > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: [c-nsp] Multicast over VPLS > > Hi, > > Any i

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco's MVPN solution with or without MDT SAFI

Hi Rod, You should do it to fix CSCef97738 >From CCO: Even though the benefits of MDT SAFI are for SSM tree building, MDT SAFI must also be configured when using MVPN with the default MDT group in PIM sparse-mode. From the multicast point of view, the new BGP AF does not need to be configured for

[c-nsp] LDP loop detection/prevention as per RFC 3036

Hi, Could someone from Cisco please clarify whether this has been implemented? Thanks in advance, Jeff ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail

Re: [c-nsp] QoS - questions

ther.net > Subject: RE: [c-nsp] QoS - questions > > Tim Franklin <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 > 12:26 PM: > > > On Tue, August 21, 2007 10:36 am, Jeff Tantsura wrote: > > > >> class LLQ > >> priority "ba

Re: [c-nsp] QoS - questions

Hi Oli, My understanding was that at least in 12.0S one could configure explicit and implicit policers so in case class LLQ priority "bandwidth" policer would kick in only in case of congestion while in class LLQ priority police "bandwidth" policer would drop any traffic above the bandwidth

[c-nsp] BGP Based VPLS Autodiscovery - RFC 4761 compliance

Hi, Cisco has announced to support BGP Based VPLS Autodiscovery in SR train(http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/products/ps6922/products_feature_g uide09186a00807f906f.htm) I couldn't find any explicit reference to RFC 4761 (by Komplella/Rekhter) however there is a reference to draft-ietf-l2vpn-vp

Re: [c-nsp] HP/Cisco LLDP/CDP

Hi, You have to tunnel STP/VTP/CDP because these protocols use well known MAC addresses and when arrive to a switch must be processed by this switch. If this is the case for LLDP then tunnelling must be used, if not, cisco switch will then happily forward it without any processing, LLDP uses L2 mu

Re: [c-nsp] VPLS over Tunnels

Hi Alaerte, To make it work you should configure a pw-class with "preferred-path TunnelX" and then to bind it to a particular neighbour ie "neighbor 2.2.2.2 pw-class XXX" Another thing to know is that since 12.2SR BGP based VPLS Autodiscovery is supported which makes config a lot simpler. VPL

[c-nsp] Limit PQ on WS-X6748

Hi, Does anyone know how to limit PQ on WS-X6748 (7609 SRA4)? Test setup: 2x1G incoming - 1G dscp 0, 1G dscp 40 , both ports trust dscp 1G uitgoing, so it is oversubscribed x2; doesn't matter what is configured on this port i see only drops in dcsp 0 queue Playing with priority-queue queue-limi

Re: [c-nsp] RSPAN over IP

Hi, Yes, it is possible, ERSPAN is the name. For 7600: ERSPAN Guidelines and Restrictions These are ERSPAN guidelines and restrictions: .Release 12.2(18)SXE and later releases support ERSPAN. .Release 12.2(18)SXF and later releases support ERSPAN when the router is operating in any switching mo

Re: [c-nsp] Prevent traffic originated from the router usingaccess-list

r.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Prevent traffic originated from the router usingaccess-list You can... http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6350/products_configuration_guide_chap ter09186a00804559b3.html On 6/27/07, Jeff Tantsura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bollocks, It does not. You can&

Re: [c-nsp] Prevent traffic originated from the router usingaccess-list

Just try it in the lab ... On 6/27/07, Jeff Tantsura < [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: Hi, It's not going to work, you'd only match on transit traffic, in order to match on locally generated traffic you should use local PBR ie: ip local policy rou

Re: [c-nsp] Prevent traffic originated from the router usingaccess-list

Hi, It's not going to work, you'd only match on transit traffic, in order to match on locally generated traffic you should use local PBR ie: ip local policy route-map BLAH Jeff > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ozgur Guler

Re: [c-nsp] Prevent traffic originated from the router using access-list

Local PBR > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vikas Sharma > Sent: woensdag 27 juni 2007 8:57 > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: [c-nsp] Prevent traffic originated from the router using access- > list > > Hi, > > How

Re: [c-nsp] 10Gigabit or other options for 12000 ?

Hi, Anyway, if you'd go for 10G on 12K, don't use the E4+ 10G card, SIP/SPA is really the only option. If you'd go n x 1G and stability is a concern stick to E3 4xGE card, one of the best cards ever made by cisco, I have seen lots of problems on 10x1GE SPA, especially in pre 12.0.(32)S7, now it ha

Re: [c-nsp] [Query] Bgp Session timers

Hi, Not only that, don't forget BGP walker :) The BGP scanner process normally runs every 60 sec Default BGP Scanner Behavior BGP monitors the next hop of installed routes to verify next-hop reachability and to select, install, and validate the BGP best path. By default, the BGP scanner is used

Re: [c-nsp] 12.0 IOS still the preferred service provider train?

Hi Tracy, 12.0S train is still the only train to run on GSR's Cisco is going to stop development on 12.0S train within few years so if your routers are "IOS XR ready-E3/5" :) I'd start looking towards it. I really liked playing with it and it has lots of stuff people on this list have been asking

Re: [c-nsp] MP-BGP, ORF with VPNv4

Hi, Yes it does. You can also configure an inbound route-filter on your RR and then by using bgp rr-group command download it through ORF to your PE's as an outbound filter. Hope this helps, Jeff > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On B

Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?

Hi, It has to do with protocols design. For new extensions IS-IS just needs a new TLV while OSPF requires some serious changes. >From my observation: few years ago most of new features came out first for ISIS last year I see some stuff coming for OSPF first: flooding of mesh group info for MPLS

Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?

Hi, http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0006/katz.html jeff > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of omar parihuana > Sent: zaterdag 21 april 2007 19:32 > To: nsp > Subject: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP? > > Hi list, > > We're redesignin