On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 16:55, Florian Bauhaus
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > What would be the best way to terminate 100k IPsec VPN clients?
> >
> > Use a 6500/7600 with appropriate modules? Put 10 ASA5580-20 in a rack?
> > How to manage the
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Joseph Hardeman wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> I have a question regarding displaying the as-path prepends that I am
> announcing to my providers. With a foundry I could display the prepends
> that I am announcing out, but I don't seem to be able to do that with the
> Cisc
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Ibrahim Abo Zaid
wrote:
> Hello Kenny
>
> what was Cisco reply for this problem ?
>
>
> Thanks
> Ibrahim Abo Zaid , CCIE#27702
>
>
>
Good question - we moved off frame-relay to HDLC and have not had the
problem since. Last time I spoke with the Qwest engineers they
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Lobo wrote:
> I've tried searching around for this problem but haven't found much info.
>
> We upgraded some 7301 routers the other night and there are a couple of
> neighbors which have not been able to re-establish themselves. Debugging
> from one of the router
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Jaquish, Bret wrote:
> Does anyone know if the ASR routing platform does network shaping at the
> microsecond level and what the minimum value is of Tc or the shaping window?
>
>
The ASR QoS is fairly complicated from what I've read about and I don't have
the direc
> ack, the "import " option is very important. You don't actually need
> the "ibgp unequal-cost" with it, unless you want to do unequal-cost ibgp
> load-sharing.
>
> In newer releases (where the import code was rewritten), the command is
> "import path limit "
>
>oli
>
>
Very cool discussio
> > The tunnel source and destination are between different loopbacks
> > within the global table, but one end of the tunnel is within the
> > global and one end within the VRF table. You might be able to NAT
> > across the GRE tunnel.
>
This is a pretty cool config, but I'm having a hard time see
Here's my interpretation / explanation: In order to get a route into a VRF
there needs to be some type of tag the router can use to determine which
routes to import into a particular VRF. This is done with route-target
export command. In a particular vrf you'd route-target import what was
exporte
I solved this problem (leaking routes from VRF to global route table) by
creating a 'VRF' that is the 'global' route table. The cisco solution is
like you mentioned (GRE, Cable loopage, or static routes - none that I
liked). So it physically looks like this: MPLS WAN Frame DS3 w/ many PVCs
(for
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Andriy Bilous wrote:
> Multilink. As members come and go you could still have your bandwidth
> "slices" proportional to the actual bandwidth available at any given
> time.
>
>
Ah yes - very good point
___
cisco-nsp maili
So - I've research the difference between the 'bandwidth percent' and
'bandwidth remaining percent' commands with regards to configuring a
policy-map on a Cisco router. There are some good links to folks who have
the theory behind each command:
Cisco:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk543/tk757/t
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Rens wrote:
> Did anyone actually give any recommendations?
> I'm looking for the same advice to run BGP, OSPF & maybe L2TPv3 later
>
>
Hi Rens - sorry for late reply as I was on vacation.
I'm running asr1000rp1-adventerprisek9.02.05.00.122-33.XNE.bin on 2 ASR
10
You could use VRF's for all interfaces and RT import/export the routes
between VRF's - even the 'global routes'. Use import-map's to control what
routes make it into each VRF. You'll need to run MP-BGP to make it work. I
basically do this where I work (different scenario but same concept).
Kenn
What if you used a different routing protocol on the backdoor link and
redistributed (carefully) between EIGRP and the diff routing protocol on the
backdoor router at each location? You'd have external EIGRP routes
everywhere then and could create different seed metrics at the MPLS border
(CE rout
>
>
>
> What's the providers take on this? The problem initially appears to be
> in their end according to what you write.
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
I've worked with the provider and Cisco today. Looks like perhaps a new(?)
bug that has to do with the way the provider applied QoS and our request to
use
t will use the route refresh capability without any extra
> configuration or memory use.
>
> Leah
>
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Kenny Sallee
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010
So - I'm having a problem w/ an MPLS provider. We have a Cisco 2851 w/
124-15.T12.bin on it. Doing basic frame-relay to an MPLS cloud (just
frame-really encapsulation). Router is running WCCP for WaaS, BGP routing,
some NAT stuff...
Here's the problem - over the last couple days - at random - w
You don't need to specify the 'soft-reconfiguration' under the bgp neighbor
but I believe you still should do a
clear ip bgp nei soft in|out
or
clear ip bgp nei soft in|out
Kenny
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Dan Goldberg wrote:
>
> I left out a detail that may be important:
> This is o
Why not an IGP on the backup link, BGP over MPLS, and eBGP peer from your
'MPLS' router to your core network? All of your MPLS routes will be eBGP w/
admin of 20 and depending on what IGP you choose it'll have a higher admin
distance. Normal ops BGP routes are preferred. If MPLS goes away IGP rou
>
>
> Is there a way to redistribute BGP into OSPF so that the routes can be
> anything but OSPF external?
>
>
I thought (tho it's been a while and I don't have time to research) that you
could use a route-map to match external OSPF routes and set them to internal
BGP. I think it would look someth
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Marko Milivojevic wrote:
> > Seems to me that peer/session templates would allow you to get more
> granular
> > with your BGP configuration then peer-groups due to
> > their inheritance feature. So it makes sense to me.
>
> >Well... comparing peer-groups and tem
>
> > 1998 called, it wants its release notes back. The modern version you
> > should be using instead of peer groups is bgp templates:
>
> ...What...? ...Why?
>
> At what scale should one consider dumping peer-group? When should one
> switch to templates? How about a mix of groups AND templates?
>
Anyone have recommendations on solid IOS XE code for ASR 1002 that's just
doing:
- BGP
- VRF's
- Many sub-interfaces and ACL's
It shipped with 02.04.02.122-33.XND2.bin
Thanks,
Kenny
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.net
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 10:57:39AM -0600, Cory Ayers wrote:
> > Have you looked at using two interfaces to loop traffic with one
> > interface in the global table and one in the VRF? You could run two
> > different OSPF processes to transp
Hi Jimmi - thanks for sharing - some comments / questions inline below
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:07 AM, jimmi wrote:
>
> Folks.
>
> I read these papers long time ago, so I do not remember anymore exactly
> what
> this options labels (A, B, AB,...) definition means.
>
Quick recap for you:
Option
So I'm reading this document from Cisco:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/mpls/configuration/guide/mp_vpn_ias_optab.html
and
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/mpls/configuration/guide/mp_vpn_connect_asbr.html
as
well as RFC 4364 section 10 "Multi-AS Backbones".
I'm wondering if anyone is
26 matches
Mail list logo
