Guy could someone confirm this please.
When fast rate is configured on cisco 7600 or juniper platform, then 1 sec.
hellos are requested from neighbor, and not actually sent. So if juniper
configures lacp fast rate, and on the other side is cisco, then it is cisco
that needs to send fast hellos eve
Hello.
Is it possible to tunnel pvst+/mst BPDUs over SVI xconnect on two 7600?
If we have a switch connected to two different 7600, what would be other
options to make spanning tree work over mpls?
Regards
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.neth
short time ?
What are your suggestions ?
Regards!
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, redscorpion69 wrote:
>
> One of our customers just got AS number. He is going to keep our
>> addressing
>> scheme (so Provider Assigned address
One of our customers just got AS number. He is going to keep our addressing
scheme (so Provider Assigned address space).
What is the best strategy to change static routing to now new BGP sessions
on few of POPs. Where does deleting ripe object and creating new ones come
into play?
So in other wor
Thanks!
That is a great idea.
Regards
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2014-10-03 10:40 +0200), redscorpion69 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > We use Juniper as peering router. Anyone use SCU/DCU for this ?
>
> I'm sure people do, this is same thing that
Thanks all.
We use Juniper as peering router. Anyone use SCU/DCU for this ?
Best Regards!
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2014-10-01 22:31 +0300), Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> > However I think it would be legal for me to put IXP members in IXP where
>
> IXP members in VRF wher
but that's not exactly it:
show qos interface bundle-Ether x input member texxx
show qos-ea interface bundle-Ether x output member texxx
show qos summary interface bundle-Ether x output member texxx
Regards
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Tom Hill wrote:
> On 02/10/14 13:32, redscorpion
member. Is
there a reason why I can't apply it? Can it be applied ?
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Tom Hill wrote:
> On 02/10/14 13:04, redscorpion69 wrote:
> > Does this mean it is not possible to configure policy-map directly on
> each
> > member once Bundle is configured
Hi guys. I know this has been discussed before, and that QoS policy-map
should be configured on Bundle interface rather than member interface.
Policy gets replicated in hardware to each member interface.
Does this mean it is not possible to configure policy-map directly on each
member once Bundle
Thanks for all the suggestions.
1. We don't have dedicated routers/vrf for peering session.
2. BCP 38 looks like ok solution, but it does look like burden to manage
since it has to be updated every time new prefix is announced...
So it looks like it would break stuff.
Regards
On Tue, Sep 30, 20
This is not Cisco-centric question, but maybe you could help me out.
What is the best way to filter traffic comming in from one of our peers and
going upstream. Basically we see the peer is sending traffic to IPs we're
not announcing to them. They may very well have a default route pointing to
us
Hello.
This is not specifically tied to one or other device, but I think an
interesting question, so I'd appreciate if someone form here could shed
some light on this matter.
Basically, we have a situation where our edge switch has a Gb downlink, and
should perform shaping with LLQ inside it for
Hello.
I'm trying to lab up some TE for testing; I have some ASR9Ks (5.1.1) and
7200 (12.2(33)SRE).
The issue I'm having is, ASRs can't see affinity bits (AG) set by 7200s,
although the reverse is true.
When setting affinity-map on ASR, it advertises both AG and EAG, for
example 0x1 and 0x::1, w
Hello.
How do I make IOSXR use configuration in "router static address-family ipv4
multicast" for rpf check instead of default unicast table? I couldn't
really find documentation on this. I don't want to create additional
topologies.
Regards
___
cisco-n
:
> Well than you might need to rely on the options that the CE provides if
> any (RIP maybe).
>
>
>
> adam
>
> *From:* redscorpion69 [mailto:redscorpio...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:56 PM
> *To:* Vitkovský Adam
> *Cc:* Velimir Filipov; cisco-ns
ther end.
> Just have the ping running and define how many failed pings result in
> positive action.
>
> adam
> > -Original Message-
> > From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> > redscorpion69
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 201
Hello,
Yeah I forgot to mention ip sla, I had it in my head. But what if CE is a
small non-cisco router that doesn't have ip sla/static bfd?
Regards
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Velimir Filipov wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> You could use ip sla and object tracking to achieve that.
>
>
> http://www
Hello,
What would be the best method of actively/passively keeping track of
validity of static route over GPON interfaces for example?
We want to give an option of backup floating static route over backup
interface, but need to be aware of primary link failure.
I could think of something like s
Hi Christian.
I think I get now; I think using "bgp add-path install" installs route in
CEF, rather than route sitting in BGP table only. So no waiting on best
path selection process. But I don't think it's sitting in RIB, I mean it
doesn't use extra TCAM space, only DRAM?
Anyway, thanks all agai
I guess any BGP PIC is out of the question on 7600 with flat fib and single
uplink.
Regards
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Cydon Satyr wrote:
> I see. But then is there any effect of having repair path installed with
> "bgp additional-paths install" command on platform without Hierarchical
Thank you all; so let me just see if I got this right.
If we're not loadbalancing with IGP (instead there's primary/backup uplink)
on edge, and not using H.FIB (with cef table output-chain build favor
convergence-speed) and we're running full BGP table on edge routers, anyone
with experience on ho
Hello,
Does 7600 runs Hierachical FIB by default?
The command to enable this should be:
*cef table output-chain build favor convergence-**speed*
The default on 7600 seems to be:
*cef table output-chain build favor default*
The document says:
"General Characteristics
Use the *cef table outp
Problem solved. no mpls mls tunnel-recir and then applied command back.
Once I did this it worked.
Yeah all other stuff was in place, that was really weird.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Michele Bergonzoni wrote:
> Could anyone explain why the following setup is not working, maybe there is
Could anyone explain why the following setup is not working, maybe there is
a limitation on 7600 for this?
PE1---[MPLS]--PE2tun99--CE
Basically, Tunnel 99 is in VRF. All routes including tunnel are visible in
VRF. Ping sourced from tunnel99 to CE works (directly connected), b
t; Was it resolved (did it have ARP entry) or was it forced to glean?
>
> If it didn't have ARP entry, do you have mls rate-limit for glean?
>
>
>
> On 6 March 2014 20:07, redscorpion69 wrote:
>
>> Today we had a couple of dozen Gbps traffic to one of our customer.
The congested 'meeting' place for DDOS traffic and BGP traffic was AS9k,
upstream of PE router. But QoS is properly implemented there, and there are
no drops for critical traffic.
ASR9010, 4.2.3.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:09 AM, redscorpion69 wrote:
> @Mick
> All our inter
; probably weren't being attacked, but maybe someone was able to send packets
> to the BGP port. This isn't something commonly left open, but stranger
> things have happened.
>
> On Mar 6, 2014, at 1:07 PM, redscorpion69 wrote:
>
> > Today we had a couple of do
Today we had a couple of dozen Gbps traffic to one of our customer.
At one point during attack, our PE router where the customer is attached
had a BGP session to one of our RR go down, only to go up after half a
minute.
Our core has juniper/asr9k, our PE router in question is 7600.
All our traff
Hello,
so does that mean I need to have native vlan tagging enabled on PE routers?
Then how do we handle untagged traffic from customer switch?
regards
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:00 PM, redscorpion69 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for quick reply.
>
> No we checked that:
>
> all_
vel
>
>
>
> On 26/02/2014 19:04, redscorpion69 wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> We've been testing different point-to-point L2VPN services on 7600 as PE
>> routers (in MEF terminology ERS, EWS).
>>
>> Basically the topology is this:
>>
&
Hello,
We've been testing different point-to-point L2VPN services on 7600 as PE
routers (in MEF terminology ERS, EWS).
Basically the topology is this:
CE--[ME3600]--[7600]MPLS-[7600]-enni(dot1ad)-[7600][ME3400]CE
^
^
|
|
|
|
QinQ
QinQ
The idea is tha
Hi,
We are running 7613 IOS 15.2(4)S3a with following hardware:
10 4-subslot SPA Interface Processor-400 7600-SIP-400
20 2 port adapter Enhanced FlexWANWS-X6582-2PA
31 1-subslot SPA Interface Processor-600 7600-SIP-600
41 1-subslot SPA Interface Processor-
Hi,
We are running 7613 IOS 15.2(4)S3a with following hardware:
10 4-subslot SPA Interface Processor-400 7600-SIP-400
20 2 port adapter Enhanced FlexWANWS-X6582-2PA
31 1-subslot SPA Interface Processor-600 7600-SIP-600
41 1-subslot SPA Interface Processor-
33 matches
Mail list logo
