Re: [c-nsp] OSPF equal cost load balancing

Are you running L2VPN traffic across those ECMP links? kind regards Pshem On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 at 16:59 CiscoNSP List wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > > Have an ASR920 connected to an ME3600 with 2 x 1Gb links with same ospf > cost (It was a single 1Gb, but secondary 1Gb was added as utilization was >

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 4506 dhcpv6 interface-id, remote-id

I haven't worked with this particular switch, but does it act as a relay-agent? I.e is the message you get a RELAY-FWD one (type 12) with the actual message inside? If so you could unpack the switch IP address from the outer message and use option 18 to id the port. kind regards Pshem On Wed, 31

Re: [c-nsp] PPPoE Migration to DHCP

one line below, PPPoE/DHCP should co exist for the benefit of both technlogies. Any chance you would share your view on BRAS config for both co exist -- *From:* Pshem Kowalczyk *Sent:* Tuesday, February 7, 2017 9:40 AM *To:* Maile Halatuituia; cisco-nsp

Re: [c-nsp] PPPoE Migration to DHCP

Hi, What's the specific question? We run both PPPoE and IPoE/DHCP in our network maintaining feature parity between both technologies. Except for the different ways to configure the BRAS/BNG the rest of the software stack is pretty much the same. kind regards Pshem On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 at 14:59 M

Re: [c-nsp] Building E-Trees

ers/asr9000/software/asr9k_r5-1/lxvpn/configuration/guide/lesc51x/lesc51p2mps.html#68334 > > Split horizon groups are actually supported for PWs, provided that you > have a relatively recent IOS-XR version. > > -- > George > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Pshem Kowalczyk

Re: [c-nsp] Building E-Trees

he bridge domain and neighbours under the VFI. kind regards Pshem On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 at 23:39 wrote: > Hi Pshem, > > > Pshem Kowalczyk > > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 9:25 PM > > > > Hi, > > > > We have a setup that currently uses a local bridge domain on

[c-nsp] Building E-Trees

Hi, We have a setup that currently uses a local bridge domain on asr9k, one local physical interface and a number of P2P PWE3 that terminate on PWHE on other asr9ks. The setup is used for broadband termination. The P2P PWE3 go to BNGs. The main reason for using a bridge domain with multiple PWE3 s

[c-nsp] ASR9k - IPoE termination

Hi, We're testing IPoE termination on ASR9ks and ran into a small, but annoying issue. Our subs will terminate on PW-Eth interfaces, that ultimately connect to a L2 broadcast domain (access network, this is not something we can change). So when there are two BNGs attached to the same broadcast dom

Re: [c-nsp] LNS Alternatives

Hi, On Mon, 23 May 2016 at 21:04 CiscoNSP List wrote: > Cheers James - We need them all(5), as our POPs are geographically VERY > far apart lol..majority of our customers are eth based, and use DSL as > either redundant link, or where eth/fibre not > available...unfortunately, they make

Re: [c-nsp] VSM NAT - throughput

document; > > Logical Partitioning inside VSM > > > https://supportforums.cisco.com/document/12019576/cgv6-vsm-cgn-nat44-deployment-guide#nat44-on-vsm-configuration > > > Regards, > > Fredrik > > On 23 May 2016 at 02:34, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote: > >> Hi, >

[c-nsp] VSM NAT - throughput

Hi, With the ISM cards we used to run 4 set of VRFs (and 4 sets of SA interfaces) to achieve full throughput of the card for NAT. We're upgrading to VSM cards now, but I'm unable to determine if they also need a similar split of traffic or not. I seem to recall that they should be able to do about

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco nas coa pppoe dynamic qos

Hi, We use CoA on our 9k BNGs. This is the syntax we use: Cisco-AVPair += "ip:qos-policy-out=add-class(sub,(class-default),police(1),set-ip-dscp(0),set-cos-inner(0))" kind regards Pshem On Sun, 22 May 2016 at 02:56 Greg Antic wrote: > Hi Guys, Is anyone using coa to dynamically adjust q

Re: [c-nsp] Wan phy support in ME3600X/ME3800X

Hi, The -24CX variant supports WAN PHY on the 4 10G ports. I remember using them in a number of locations with 'over SDH' backhaul. kind regards Pshem On Fri, 13 May 2016 at 03:22 Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 12/May/16 17:07, thiyagarajan b wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > Does ME3600X/3800X supp

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ASR 9k and Windows RADIUS server

Just a suggestion. I've seen something similar with SNMP communities in XR - try prepending all 'special' characters in the secret with a backslash '\' in the configuration. kind regards Pshem On Thu, 5 May 2016 at 22:51 David Wilkinson wrote: > On 04/05/2016 07:37, Ulrik Ivers wrote: > > Hi

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9K VSM

Hi, If my calculations were correct you might not have enough of public IP space for this. Increasing the port-limit is not going to help here, as the contention is on the number of ports a single public IP can open. kind regards Pshem On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 at 23:51 Mohammad Khalil wrote: > Hi

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9K VSM

Hi, I was after subscribers, not sessions (as in 'active NAT translations'). Your current port_limit (of 2048) is higher than what you can get out of ratio of private/public IPs (around 75:1). You can only get around 900 TCP + 900 UDP ports on average per active subscriber in your setup. From the

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9K VSM

Looking at the number of subscribers you have there (~300k) and the fact that you have 2 x /21 allocated for public space - that means about 70 subscribers per public IP address. This feels a little bit on the high side, even for mobile traffic. Since all sessions belonging to a given private IP ad

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9K VSM

How many active subscribers (inside IPs) do you have per one outside IP? For example in one of the installations I worked on we used 16 active subscribers per outside IP (4096 ports per subscriber). kind regards Pshem On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 at 22:03 Mohammad Khalil wrote: > > Hi > Can you clarif

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9K VSM

Hi, What's your inside IP/outside IP ratio? kind regards Pshem On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 at 21:44 Mohammad Khalil wrote: > Hi Pshem > Thanks for the reply , please check my configuration below > > vrf OUTSIDE > address-family ipv4 unicast > > vrf INSIDE-1 > address-family ipv4 unicast > > vrf INS

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9K VSM

Hi, The card is capable of 60mil translations, but you have to 'partition' your traffic into at least 2 ServiceApp interface pairs (4 ServiceApp interfaces total). The port drops mean that the 'inside' IP/ports couldn't be mapped because there is not enough ports left on give public IP. Do you do

Re: [c-nsp] PBA best practices

Hi, We (for a fixed line fibre/DSL customers) run the following settings: - block size - 1024 ports - up to 4 blocks per sub - address sharing ratio - used to be 30:1, now moving to about 15:1 - tcp initial timeout - 60 sec, UDP - 60 sec. kind regards Pshem On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 at 12:56 Adam Vit

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9006 - CG NAT - VSM-500

Just a wild guess here, but I suspect you might be seeing the source port on your public IP, not the destination port in the CLI (despite the fact it calls it 'destination port'). kind regards Pshem On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 at 04:23 Aaron wrote: > Syslogging for CGNat is turning up some interesting

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9006 - CG NAT - VSM-500

t; > > -Original Message- > From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of > Aaron > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 9:28 PM > To: 'Pshem Kowalczyk'; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net; 'Aftab Siddiqui' > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR9006 -

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9006 - CG NAT - VSM-500

Hi, We use the previous non-virtualised cards (ISM-100) in our 9Ks. The experience has been generally positive. The configuration is quite simple and the cards work well. Do spend some time analysing various limitations of the card (pool sizes, throughput per ServiceApp pair, allowed bulk allocati

[c-nsp] ASR9001 - BNG reload

Hi, We've upgraded our ASR9001 that we use as BNGs to 5.2.4 (and all the current SMUs). About a week after the upgrade one of them reloaded on its own. After discussing this with TAC a new bug was created ( https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuw44711). TAC is saying it's some sort of race con

Re: [c-nsp] PE NAT / VRF Aware NAT on PE

Aaron wrote: > Thanks > > > > ASR920 ? > > > > Aaron > > > > *From:* Pshem Kowalczyk [mailto:pshe...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, September 28, 2015 8:50 PM > *To:* Aaron; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > *Subject:* Re: [c-nsp] PE NAT / VRF Aware NAT on PE

Re: [c-nsp] PE NAT / VRF Aware NAT on PE

Hi, ME3600 does not support NAT. kind regards Pshem On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 at 14:46 Aaron wrote: > Anyone know how to do PE NAT / VRF Aware over MPLS L3VPN on an ME3600 ? > > > > I edge in ip traffic on ME3600's as the PE to MPLS L3VPN. > > > > I was wanting to make the customer-facing port of t

Re: [c-nsp] VASI support on ASR920

Hi, I don't expect that platform to ever support those sort of features (but that's my personal opinion). The network chips in the platform can do very minimal amount of manipulation and the CPU doesn't have a lot of power either. What sort of functionality do you need on those devices? kind reg

Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 vs ISR4000

Hi, General feel for the boxes: ISR4331 is and enterprise/corporate type device. Quite flexible and versatile (albeit at a cost of lower throughput). ASR920 is a carrier MPLS aggregation/edge for mainly L2 services. Non-internet scale of L3 can be done as well. Can only forward packets (with limi

Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits

It's actually quite easy. Provider1 is present at Exchange1 and Exchange2, so is Provider2. Provider2 doesn't want to pay for the traffic between Exchange1 and Exchange2, so it points a static route for all prefixes it has in Exchange2 via Provider1's IP address in Exchange1 and does the same in Ex

Re: [c-nsp] NAT on ASR9001

Hi, Yes that's correct, ASR9k won't do any NAT without the ISM card. kind regards Pshem On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 at 02:29 Roberto Ermac wrote: > Hi guys. > > I'm reading some forums about the Cisco ASR 9001 aka Ironman. > > They say that those routers does not support NAT for IPv4 because there is

Re: [c-nsp] CSR1000V and CPU usage

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 at 02:36 Roland Dobbins wrote: > On 13 Aug 2015, at 20:05, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > That's what we do. Works like a charm, over 12x months now. > > Yes, that's a perfect application for it. > > Horses for courses :-) We have found some applications for it as well: 1. Simplific

Re: [c-nsp] CSR1000V and CPU usage

Hi, The bandwidth is assessed as a sum on ingress: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/csr1000/software/configuration/csr1000Vswcfg/licensing.html#pgfId-997645 My unscientific experiments seem to indicate that the control plane traffic is probably not counted towards the licensed bandwid

Re: [c-nsp] CSR1000V and CPU usage

For completness, this is what we use to get higher performance out of CSR1000v on ESX: 1. Set Latency Sensitve to High ( http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/techpaper/latency-sensitive-perf-vsphere55.pdf ) 2. ethernetX.coalescingScheme = "disable" (for all interfaces on the VM) 3. Pin down memory and

Re: [c-nsp] CSR1000V and CPU usage

Hi, Currently we push only a small amount of bandwidth right now - the 2.5G was during initial testing when we're assessing the performance and scalability. At this stage the statistics looks like this: #show platform software status control-processor RP0: online, statistics updated 0 seconds ag

Re: [c-nsp] CSR1000V and CPU usage

Hi, We use the CSR1000V on ESX as well. From my experience - the code that calculates the load of the router is most likely not aware it runs within a VM so the calculation are done in relation to 100% CPU utilisation, but since the number of allocated cycles might change the resulting number is r

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9K License Issue

I know its a silly question, but have you loaded the licence file onto the box: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr9000/software/asr9k_r4-2/system_management/configuration/guide/b_sysman_cg42asr9k/b_sysman_cg42asr9k_chapter_0101.html#task_1032143 ? If the licence is loaded but not app

Re: [c-nsp] Cheap BGP router for ~20k prefixes

should be able to get about 800k PPS, but I suspect that's on basic image (i.e. without MPLS). kind regards Pshem On Mon, 11 May 2015 at 07:48 Pshem Kowalczyk wrote: > Hi, > > We've changed the following settings: > > 1. Set Latency Sensitve to High ( > http://www.

Re: [c-nsp] Cheap BGP router for ~20k prefixes

Hi, We've changed the following settings: 1. Set Latency Sensitve to High ( http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/techpaper/latency-sensitive-perf-vsphere55.pdf ) 2. ethernetX.coalescingScheme = "disable" (for all interfaces, but management on the VM) 3. Pin down memory and CPU (we run a 4 vCPU setup

Re: [c-nsp] Cheap BGP router for ~20k prefixes

Cisco UCS, B200M3 blade, VIC 1240, CPU Xeon, E5-2665, DDR1600. kind regards Pshem > > what hardware are you running this on? i.e. cpu / ethernet cards. > > Nick > > > ___ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mai

Re: [c-nsp] Cheap BGP router for ~20k prefixes

We've just started to evaluate the CSR1000V as a traffic-carrying router. So far we've pushed about 2.2Gb/s through it with no problems. When it comes to PPS - we're doing about 450k. The way the load shapes seems to indicate that the box should be able to handle about 5Gb/s using the APPX licence.

Re: [c-nsp] redistribute subscriber route leaking on ASR9k

Hi, We've encountered this bug on our BNGs as well. Initially in 4.3.4, but it's also present in the 5.2.x train. To get this going we've put some aggregate hold-down routes on another (upstream from BNG) routers that cover all the subscriber ranges and run label-per vrf (to force the L3 lookup).

Re: [c-nsp] Internet in VRF

+1 for Internet in a VRF. I've deployed this sort of setup for a number of operators. Definitely allows for much greater flexibility when it comes to services - everyone had to run something more then just 'internet' to the sites (management, corporate network, sometimes private VPNs). Not to ment

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco IOS XR CGN

Hi, There is no SNMP support in XR 4.3.4 that we use so we had to resort to some expect scripts over CLI in order to graph that. There was supposed to be SNMP support for the ISM cards in 5.1/5.2 but I can't find any info about it either. kind regards Pshem On Tue Feb 03 2015 at 11:32:19 PM M K

Re: [c-nsp] QOS on ME3600 (service instance)

Hi, Do you have a port-level outbound service policy in your config as well as the EVC-one? kind regards Pshem On 22 September 2014 14:51, CiscoNSP List wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > Ive configured a simple test to ensure egress shaping is working under a > service instance (As you cannot apply s

Re: [c-nsp] ME3600 config help, Q in Q

AFAIK to terminate into layer 3 you'll have to pop both tags: service instance 10 ethernet encapsulation dot1q 1048 second-dot1q 1058 rewrite ingress tag pop 2 symmetric bridge-domain 1058 kind regards Pshem On 9 August 2014 05:40, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > You don't need to specify vlan 1

[c-nsp] ASR9k as BNG - radius attributes

Hi, We use asr9k (4.3.4) as a BNG. At this stage a lot of profile configuration is done via 'dynamic profile' section. Due to increased number of profiles required I started looking at using radius as a way of delivering more attributes. So far I found two template config lines that don't seem to

Re: [c-nsp] QOS on asr901

Sender: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net On-Behalf-Of: pshe...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [c-nsp] QOS on asr901 Message-Id: Recipient: adam.atkin...@damovo.com Recipient: darren.coll...@damovo.com --- Begin Message --- Hi, ASR901 has a very odd qos implementation due to the fact it's based on a stoc

Re: [c-nsp] QOS on asr901

Hi, ASR901 has a very odd qos implementation due to the fact it's based on a stock-standard Broadcom chip. From my experience - only basic stuff actually works (regardless of what docs say). On a single port you can effectively have only one egress policy (regardless of the number of the EVCs you

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9k - ISM 100 SNMP counters for CGNAT

Hi, I've learnt from TAC engineer that SNMP for the ISM cards is not going to be supported till at least 5.3. kind regards Pshem On 7 June 2014 21:03, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote: > Hi, > > We've commissioned some ASR9ks to do CGNAT for our subscribers > (nat44). I can see

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 9k TenGig interface Output drops

This document can help - https://supportforums.cisco.com/document/110671/asr9000xr-np-counters-explained-xr421 In this particular case it claims: Total number of ingress/egress frames dropped to a child policing policy. kind regards Pshem On 9 June 2014 15:12, Simon Allard wrote: > Thank you

[c-nsp] ASR9k - ISM 100 SNMP counters for CGNAT

Hi, We've commissioned some ASR9ks to do CGNAT for our subscribers (nat44). I can see some statistics on the CLI using "sh cgn nat44 INSTANCE_NAME statistics", but we would like to be able to plug them into a monitoring system. I've search the MIBs and can't find anything useful there. Any idea if

Re: [c-nsp] ASR903 BDI interface (how to do L3 on a VLAN?)

Hi, Your config should work. Do you have 'bridge-domain 10' in your config as well? kind regards Pshem On 4 June 2014 02:14, Vitkovský Adam wrote: > Hi folks, > How do you guys configure L3 routing for VLANs on ASR903 please? > I have tried with BDI interface and can't get it to work. > Comes w

Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G

ptics: > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/interfaces_modules/transceiver_modules/compatibility/matrix/OL_24900.html#77832 > > HTH > Arie > > -Original Message- > From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Pshem > Kowalczyk

Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G

Hi, At this stage we wouldn't be able to justify the spend to go 100G on ASR9k. We're not talking about a single router or interface here, but quite a few. Besides - that doesn't really answer the question what to do with distances over the 10km. kind regards Pshem On 28 February 2014 13:06,

[c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G

Hi, We just started planning to upgrade our 10G (and nx10G) links to 40G (on ASR9k). Quick scan through Cisco website revealed that there are no 40km optics available from Cisco. That threw a big spanner into the works as we have a bunch of links definitely over LR budgets. So the question is - h

Re: [c-nsp] output rate-limiting ME-3600X

Hi, We do it regularly and for all interfaces: policy-map PM-INT-100M-OUT class class-default shape average 1 interface GigabitEthernet0/2 switchport trunk allowed vlan none switchport mode trunk service-policy output PM-INT-100M-OUT We'd generally have a service-instance rate-li

Re: [c-nsp] ME3600X - Hairpinning/Local Connect

Hi, You have to use the EVC concept here - create a bridge-domain and add both service instances to it. I'm also not sure what you're trying to achieve with the 'no rewrite' command - by default no tag manipulation is done. Most of the EVC concepts are explained here: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us

Re: [c-nsp] Question on ASR9K feature licenses

Hi, On 19 February 2014 08:36, Herro91 wrote: > Hi, > > I'm having trouble finding the right answers to licenses on the ASR9000. > Hoping someone on the list below can help: > > 1) If we have the Infrastructure VRF license only - does that mean: > a) We can configure an MPLS L3VPN for up t

Re: [c-nsp] iBGP routes preferred over eBGP routes...

Hi, You haven't showed the BGP config for 3.3.3.3 on bdr2, but clearly you get: BGP(0): 3.3.3.3 rcvd 66.192.25.0/24 -- DENIED due to: distribute/prefix-list; so there must be something there that stops that route from being received. kind regards Pshem __

Re: [c-nsp] Multi-VRF on MPLS-VPN

If the customer wants to run their own MPLS across your MPLS VPN - you should look at CSC (Carrier Supporting Carrier) setup. kind regards Pshem On 6 February 2014 23:44, Alex Nyagah wrote: > Hello team, > > I running an MPLS VPN network over ASR1002 Cisco routers and i have a > request from a

Re: [c-nsp] Unified MPLS - Discrete area or separate IGP in Access Layer

Hi, In our case (national network + regional metros, that split into multiple 'areas') we initially deployed 2 levels of ISIS. What we discovered that if a single 'core' node has to provide connectivity to multiple 'access' areas the L1 area becomes continuous and spills the routes (ISIS doesn't h

Re: [c-nsp] show l2protocol-tunnel equivalent on ME3600

Hi, There isn't one. Out of curiosity - do you have to tunnel (i.e. the other end of that service is on a layer 2 device) or could you get away with simple 'forward'? kind regards Pshem On 6 February 2014 09:37, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > On an ME3400, I can see how l2protocol-tunneling is behaving

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR: 6PE - next-hop manipulation in route-policy.

Hi, For IPv4 we ended up manipulating the next hops on the outbound policy from the RRs (in XR). There is one magic switch under the bgp config that you have to enable for the outbound manipulations to work: bgp ibgp policy out enforce-modifications kind regards Pshem On 4 February 2014 0

Re: [c-nsp] BGP add-path with MPBGP/VPNv4

Hi, Do you use the same RD for the default route on both of those originating PEs? kind regards Pshem On 6 December 2013 07:09, Andrew K. wrote: > I have a VRF configuration with MP-BGP/MPLS. > > In vrf A there are two default gateways being advertised to the > route-reflectors. > > Half of th

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 901 EoMPLS

Hi, I was told that 15.4 will be released around 27/11. kind regards Pshem On 19 November 2013 12:36, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote: > Hi, > > I just realised that this feature is not in the official software. > We're running a pre-release 15.3.4 here (3.11 in XE speak), for our &g

Re: [c-nsp] Possible split horizon issue with bgp signalled vpls

Hi, I assume here you're running ME3600x. Split horizon works by stopping any packets that arrived on one pseudowire from leaving on another pseudowire. Attachment circuit to another attachment circuit is not affected (unless you make add them to another split-horizon group manually). Can you sho

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 901 EoMPLS

jected > > /F > > > > > On 18 November 2013 19:43, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The only way we could get the L2 forwarding going on ASR901 was using >> a single service instance with encapsulation default (this only works >> in new

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 901 EoMPLS

Hi, The only way we could get the L2 forwarding going on ASR901 was using a single service instance with encapsulation default (this only works in newest software): interface GigabitEthernet0/8 no ip address negotiation auto no keepalive service instance 1 ethernet encapsulation default l

Re: [c-nsp] ME3600 BFD session to A9K breaks after upgrade to 15.3(3)S1a

I can't check right now but what are the defaults for ISIS hello padding on ME3600x? kind regards Pshem On 15 November 2013 06:39, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > Hi all, > > I got an answer on this and thought I'd share. It bit me in the ass and I'd > hate for it to bite anyone else. > > The root caus

Re: [c-nsp] ME3600X & A9K L2 Protocol Tunnelling support

Hi Jason, ME3600 does support tunnelling of l2 control frames on xconnect EVCs, these are a snippets of config from our network: service instance 2020 ethernet encapsulation default l2protocol tunnel service-policy input PM-CUST-DEFAULT-200M-BD-IN service-policy output PM-CUST-DEFAULT-20

Re: [c-nsp] private/port-based l2vpn service

Hi, The easiest way to do that is to use 'encapsulation default': interface GigabitEthernet0/5 description Test INT VPLS switchport trunk allowed vlan none switchport mode trunk mtu 9000 load-interval 30 media-type rj45 service-policy output PM-INT-1G-OUT service instance 304 ethernet e

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9000 queue-limit ? ms

Hi Saku On 15 October 2013 22:35, Saku Ytti wrote: > On (2013-10-15 22:04 +1300), Pshem Kowalczyk wrote: > >> 1. Voice - 2-3 ms (and probably a policer around 35-40% of link size) >> 2. Video - up to 10 ms (assuming HD streaming, otherwise less) >> 3. Everything else -

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9000 queue-limit ? ms

Hi, The numbers should probably depend on size and loadings of your network. The numbers below is what I use as my rule of thumb. Without going into too much details: 1. Voice - 2-3 ms (and probably a policer around 35-40% of link size) 2. Video - up to 10 ms (assuming HD streaming, otherwise less

Re: [c-nsp] asr9k (xr 4.1.2) null 0 traffic not showing packets in packets out

Hi, My guess is that you won't be able to see them. Each NP determines the destination of the packet (and egress NP), I suspect if the destination is determined to be 'Null0' the packet is plainly discarded there and then. kind regards Pshem On 12 October 2013 03:20, Aaron wrote: > I have a sta

Re: [c-nsp] VPLS ASR1k - ME3800 - no L2 tunnelling ?

Hi Adam, With 'forward' the ethernet packets are forwarded 'as-is' through the MPLS topology. With 'tunnel' the destination MAC address gets rewritten to a 'special' multicast MAC addresses, the remote end of the 'tunnel' restores the original MAC address. Forward can be used if both customer de

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9K IOS-XR 4.3.2 or 5.1.0

Hi, I was told by our SE that 4.3.2 (effectively a bug fix over 4.3.1) should be stable enough. He also suggested that if we're not in a hurry to wait till 4.3.4 (ETA Jan). kind regards Pshem On 25 September 2013 00:58, Claes Jansson wrote: > Hi, we're currently running 4.2.3 and need to upgra

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS-TE on ME3600

Hi, On 13 September 2013 03:10, Eric Van Tol wrote: > > Thanks for the insight. I've confirmed in the lab that explicit paths allow > LSP setup across areas. > > And just to confirm, if our switches have no routed ports on the core-facing > side, where MPLS and EFPs are configured, enabling FR

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS-TE on ME3600

to be passed into other areas) > > Aaron > > -Original Message- > From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of > Pshem Kowalczyk > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:36 PM > To: Eric Van Tol > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Sub

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS-TE on ME3600

Hi, We use ME3600x with MPLS TE. I can't comment on the first point (we don't have multiple areas), but on the second one - path protection is protection end-to-end, whilst FRR uses a local repair mechanism, so these two are quite different in the way they work. FRR on that device works fine and p

Re: [c-nsp] Why L2VPN Pseudowire Redundancy not work?

Hi, What sort of platform is this on? Generally this sort of issues (one way traffic) would indicate that something doesn't get flushed properly after the switchover to backup. This setup should generally work no problems. kind regards Pshem On 3 September 2013 14:03, PlaWanSai RMUTT CPE IX wro

Re: [c-nsp] qos plan - advice please

Hi Aaron, Please be aware that asr901 has a relatively slow CPU, which means that all ip sla probe packets will be competing with every other router function (except forwarding) for the resource. If you want to reliably measure the quality of service you provide you should go past your devices and

Re: [c-nsp] ASR901 - L2 tunneling

Hi, I have not managed yet to get to this stage - i.e. most of L2 gets dropped on ingress. The fact that the box can't do port-mirror doesn't help in determining where they actually disappear and why. kind regards Pshem On 28 August 2013 07:32, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Monday, August 26, 2013 03:

Re: [c-nsp] ASR901 - L2 tunneling

t it > - L2protocol forwarding is supported on EFPs only for untagged PDUs > - L2protocol forwarding for tagged PDUs is only supported locally on BD > - L2protocol forwarding for both tagged and untagged PDUs is supported with > port-based EoMPLS > > George > > > On Mon, Au

[c-nsp] ASR901 - L2 tunneling

Hi, I'm trying to asses if we could use asr901 for our usual metro-E deployments (where we currently use ME3600x). L3 on the ASR901 seems to work well enough, but with L2 I've encountered some issues, especially around L2 tunneling. I've already managed to confirm with Cisco, that some of the func

Re: [c-nsp] IOS XR - advertising additional paths with RR

nexthop 10.123.129.1 Tunnel3000 recursive via 10.123.129.3 label 40, repair nexthop 10.123.129.3 Tunnel3001 kind regards Pshem On 23 August 2013 10:26, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to lab out a setup for core PIC on IOS XR using 4.2.3. I'm > not sur

[c-nsp] IOS XR - advertising additional paths with RR

Hi, I'm trying to lab out a setup for core PIC on IOS XR using 4.2.3. I'm not sure if my understanding of the feature is correct, so please correct me if I'm going down the rabbit hole. My setup: PE1---P1/RR--PE2 \ |/ P2 (both PE1 and PE2 are multihomed to P1/RR and

Re: [c-nsp] Catalyst 6500/6800 suitable as PE in provider network (SUP2T)?

Hi, Depending on your 10G requirements ASR903 might be an option (it provides up to 4x10G + 15x1G) with redundant sups. It runs IOS XE. Other option might be the 2 slot ASR9k - ASR9904 (http://d2zmdbbm9feqrf.cloudfront.net/2013/usa/pdf/BRKSPG-2684.pdf slide 15). I personally wouldn't go with the 6

Re: [c-nsp] ASR901 - VPLS Support

Hi, According to my friendly SE - sometime in Q1Y14. kind regards Pshem On 16 August 2013 16:48, Andrew K. wrote: > Anyone know if this feature is supported on the ASR901? I believe it is on > the 903, but I am not finding anything to say it is or isn't on the 901. > > If not are there any pla

Re: [c-nsp] BGP Signalled VPLS

Hi, ASR901 is based on a Broadcom chipset. It can do max of 3 labels. kind regards Pshem On 10 August 2013 06:55, Saku Ytti wrote: > On (2013-08-09 18:24 +0300), Nitzan Tzelniker wrote: > >> regarding SR one thing that I thing is a problem with it is the number of >> labels you can push on the

Re: [c-nsp] ME3600 QoS

Hi, I suspect that if you use 'remaining percent' you might to define the overall output speed for the service instance. You also have to specify interface output speed using policy (for example 'shape average 10' for 1G interface). kind regards Pshem On 7 August 2013 20:59, Nick Ryce

Re: [c-nsp] Carrier Aggregation advice

Hi, If you need slightly denser box - have a look at ME3600x-24cx - can go up to 4x10G at the price of disabling some 1G ports. The -CX is shallower (fits into 400mm depth no problem). You can get similar densities out of ASR903 as well (this runs IOS XE), but it's effectively the same as ME3600x

Re: [c-nsp] Connecting isolated L3 islands without GRE tunnels

Hi, I'm also slightly confused by the requirements here. If all the sites are publicly addressed, with internet access, why don't you just plain route the traffic across the internet? Each site has a default route from your provider and advertises its internal ranges to the provider. All the other

Re: [c-nsp] MPLS down to the CPE

There are ways of separating the 'core' MPLS from 'access' MPLS, with separate IGP domains. Cisco came up (well not really, but at least they made their devices compliant) with Unified MPLS (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/optical/ps5726/ps11348/white_paper_c11-656286_ps6557_Products_Whi

Re: [c-nsp] CISCO ME3600X ARP ISSUE

n 3600 interface connectivity with patton is > restored. > > Στις 3 Ιουλ 2013 10:18 μ.μ., ο χρήστης "Pshem Kowalczyk" > έγραψε: > >> Hi Antonis, >> >> When the loss of connectivity happens - do you still have a valid ARP >> entry on the ME3600 for the Patton?

Re: [c-nsp] CISCO ME3600X ARP ISSUE

Hi Antonis, When the loss of connectivity happens - do you still have a valid ARP entry on the ME3600 for the Patton? If so - what happens if you clear that ARP entry on ME3600 manually and then try to ping the Patton? kind regards Pshem On 4 July 2013 04:56, Antonis Vosdoganis wrote: > There

Re: [c-nsp] Changing ve id doesn't withdraw old prefixes

Hi, It does look like a bug. How often would you change ve id though? I'd expect that to be fairly static once set up. We had a number of issues of that sort (Cisco expected the number/id to be static during the lifetime of a service, but we changed it). Most of those bugs ultimately got fixed, bu

Re: [c-nsp] BITS interface on ME-3600X

Hi, ME3600x can be used for mobile backhaul. If you do E1/T1 or STM emulation - you have to provide correct clocking to both sides. One end would normally take the clocking of some external source (for example using the BITS port) and the other one would relay on something like 1588v2 (or syncE) t

Re: [c-nsp] ASR9k HSRP group reuse

Hi Aivars, The bottom line is - you can not re-use them on the same physical interface unless you can be sure that all groups with the same id will switch-over at the same time (I'm not sure if the limitation is on the interface level or NP level). VRRP v3 helps here, as you can have more ids, but

Re: [c-nsp] PWHE on asr9k license requirements

hi, There are no special licences required. And even if there were - atm it's an honesty based system. All you get is a message in the log. kind regards Pshem Sent from my mobile On Jun 1, 2013 6:44 AM, "Markus Binder" wrote: > Hi, > are there any license requirements for PWHE Feature on asr9k

  1   2   3   >