Hey all,
With the ME3600 EOL, we’re looking to start deploying ASR920s. These boxes
would run 100% L3 on the core facing sides (at 10 or 20Gbps), and aside from
the odd corner case, 100% L3 on the customer facing side.
Some of the more major features they’d run would be:
ISIS
LDP
BFD
BGP-VPNv4
Hi Jason,
We're running several, primarily as PE's facing external networks, with
ISIS, LDP, BGP, VPNv4, IPv6 (not 6VPE) and EoMPLS. So far, no major
issues, we're running 03.16.04.S or 03.16.05.S. Core facing interfaces
are IP only, not trunks attached to BDI's. My only concern up to this
poin
.nether.net] On Behalf Of Stephen
Fulton
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 12:38 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 Opinions
Hi Jason,
We're running several, primarily as PE's facing external networks, with ISIS,
LDP, BGP, VPNv4, IPv6 (not 6VPE) and EoMPLS. So fa
Hey,
We have about 40 of ASR920's, mostly 24SZ-M and 24SZ-IM variants. We're
running mainly 03.16.04S and 03.16.05S.
We're using ASR920s only for layer-2 transport -- pseudowires and VPLS; For
internet customers, we establish an
L2 pseudowire to transport the user from ASR920 to an IP transit
Hi,
> On Dec 19, 2017, at 8:52 PM, James Jun wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> We have about 40 of ASR920's, mostly 24SZ-M and 24SZ-IM variants. We're
> running mainly 03.16.04S and 03.16.05S.
…
> For layer-2 services, we use LDP signalled L2CKT and VPLS. We tried testing
> layer-3 use case, but last t
James Jun wrote on 20/12/2017 3:52 πμ:
...
The Bad Stuff:
...
- FAT-PW is not supported on ASR920s, and last I checked, is not even on the
roadmap. ASR90x (902, 903, 907)
with RSP-3C have FAT-PW support starting with Everest release SW.
Long story short, ASR920 is meant to aggre
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 09:43:01PM -0500, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
>
> Are you saying that whatever L3 issues you had have been resolved in the
> versions you cited above?
No, we only tested it way back (in 2015'ish?) for box's capabilities, then
decided to only use for L2 backhaul.
I'd defer to ot
Netflow -
Requires an extra license
Only works at 1gig
So we did not bother.
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jason
Lixfeld
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 1:31 PM
To: Cisco-nsp
Subject: [c-nsp] ASR920 Opinions
This message
On 19/Dec/17 20:31, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> FAT-PW
This could be tricky - check the latest code to confirm.
> VRF aware DHCP Relay w/option 82 stamping (device, port (EFP?), VLAN)
> VRF aware DHCP Server
DHCP on the ASR920? Can't think of it being supported in the past. Check
the latest code
On 20/Dec/17 00:36, Erik Sundberg wrote:
>
> One down side is the 20K IPv4/IPv6 Route limit. So no full routes and we also
> place a RT Filter on our VPNv4 sessions back to the core.
BGP-SD is your friend.
We hold a full IPv4/IPv6 table on each of them in RAM, which a handful
of useful routes
On 20/Dec/17 03:52, James Jun wrote:
>Overall, ASR920 is like the perfect Metro-E switch but configuration wise,
> behaves much like a router than a
>switch. I think this makes 920 much, much more attractive platform when
> compared to similar MetroE/packet
>backhaul boxes from sa
: Thursday, December 21, 2017 11:17 AM
To: Erik Sundberg; Stephen Fulton; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 Opinions
On 20/Dec/17 00:36, Erik Sundberg wrote:
>
> One down side is the 20K IPv4/IPv6 Route limit. So no full routes and we also
> place a RT Filter on
Hi Jason,
I would second what everyone else has already said; we're using
version 3.16.something (can't remember off the top of my head) on
probably a couple of hundred ASR920s; usually edge PE services:
L3 VPNs (IPv4, 6PE)
L2 VPNs (mostly pseudowires, just a tiny bit of VPLS on these, we
avoid VP
Fulton
; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 Opinions
On 20/Dec/17 00:36, Erik Sundberg wrote:
One down side is the 20K IPv4/IPv6 Route limit. So no full routes and we also
place a RT Filter on our VPNv4 sessions back to the core.
BGP-SD is your friend.
We hold a full IPv4
Bensley
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 5:02 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 Opinions
Hi Jason,
I would second what everyone else has already said; we're using version
3.16.something (can't remember off the top of my head) on probably a couple of
hundred ASR920
words are my own.
Spyros
From: cisco-nsp on behalf of Erik Sundberg
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 1:47 AM
To: James Bensley; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 Opinions
I found a good example of BGP-SD
https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-920-se
We use ASR920-24 for a very small FTTX broadband deployment. We do Internet
in a VRF and use table filter "selective download" to install default only
in FIB. (This is belt-and-braces as we only send/receive default, but I
like the functionality.)
We also use the IOS-XE DHCP/DHCPv6 server. Works w
We use them as an access/aggregation "small" router installed either inside
outdoor cabinets for broadband and ME services or at small PoPs for aggregation
MSANs. Some of the features are, MPLS, BGP (with RFC3107), LDP, RSVP, BFD. The
backhauling is 2x10G in a ring topology with other ASR920. Al
On 22/Dec/17 13:13, Spyros Kakaroukas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We've also been doing something similar for about a year now, and we're
> pretty happy with it. We're only installing defaults ( pointing towards large
> boxes that do install the full table ) , prefixes originated inside our own
> AS
19 matches
Mail list logo
