Re: [c-nsp] DMVPN scalability question on the 28XX ISR's

[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Engelhard Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 8:06 PM To: rod...@cisco.com Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] DMVPN scalability question on the 28XX ISR's Any suggestion for 2000+ spokes with 4 headends? Headends will be ASR100x. We

Re: [c-nsp] DMVPN scalability question on the 28XX ISR's

[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Engelhard Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 8:06 PM To: rod...@cisco.com Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] DMVPN scalability question on the 28XX ISR's Any suggestion for 2000+ spokes with 4 headends? Headends will be ASR100x. We

Re: [c-nsp] DMVPN scalability question on the 28XX ISR's

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:35:37 -0700, Luan Nguyen l...@netcraftsmen.net wrote: In this case, a dual hub (loadshare/backup) for 1000+ spokes would be just fine. Single-hub, dual-cloud scales and performs and converges better than dual-hub, single-cloud and are not even recommended by Cisco.

Re: [c-nsp] DMVPN scalability question on the 28XX ISR's

We are using a laptop running windows xp and ftp server from 3com 3cdeamon. connected to the cable modem - 10kcmts - cisco 3650 sw - deal power edge server running ubunto server. I connect to the servers using ssh and from the shell I ftp to the laptop Doing command line put's and get's using

Re: [c-nsp] DMVPN scalability question on the 28XX ISR's

: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 2:04 PM To: Luan Nguyen; 'Engelhard'; rod...@cisco.com; Erik Witkop Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] DMVPN scalability question on the 28XX ISR's On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:35:37 -0700, Luan Nguyen l...@netcraftsmen.net wrote: In this case, a dual hub

Re: [c-nsp] DMVPN scalability question on the 28XX ISR's

Solution Center. -Luan -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Engelhard Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 8:06 PM To: rod...@cisco.com Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] DMVPN scalability question

[c-nsp] DMVPN scalability question on the 28XX ISR's

I don't know the topology of the remote networks but is there a reason that you have to run a routing protocol with remote sites ? Are they fully meshed ? If there are not multiple paths to a remote location why not just do static routes ? Look at ODR

Re: [c-nsp] DMVPN scalability question on the 28XX ISR's

My suggestion is to run code that support dynamic BGP neighbors at the hub and run BGP over the mGRE to the spokes. ..or followed by EIGRP. Rodney On 4/18/10 7:14 AM, Anton Kapela wrote: On Apr 17, 2010, at 8:54 PM, Erik Witkop wrote: We are considering DMVPN for a WAN network with (92)

Re: [c-nsp] DMVPN scalability question on the 28XX ISR's

Any suggestion for 2000+ spokes with 4 headends? Headends will be ASR100x. We think to put Loadbalancer (ACE) in front of ASR to spread DMVPN traffic. Is it design wise? Sent from my iPhone On 2010/04/19, at 23:28, Rodney Dunn rod...@cisco.com wrote: My suggestion is to run code that

[c-nsp] DMVPN scalability question on the 28XX ISR's

We are considering DMVPN for a WAN network with (92) Cisco 870 remote routers and (2) Cisco 2851 headend routers. My concern is around the scalability of the 92 connections to each 2851. Assuming we have AIM modules in each 2851 router, do you think that would be sized properly. I read