Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 15/Mar/18 12:18, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > Maybe you might start looking at some scaling techniques when you'll have a > need to transport multiple paths for a prefix for load-sharing or > primary-backup use cases, say to reduce internet convergence times form 2 > mins down to

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

sday, March 13, 2018 11:29 PM To: adamv0...@netconsultings.com; 'Saku Ytti' Cc: 'Job Snijders'; 'Cisco Network Service Providers' Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID) On 13/Mar/18 18:47, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: Ok you’re still missing the point, let me ty with the

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 13/Mar/18 18:47, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > Ok you’re still missing the point, let me ty with the following example. > > Now suppose we both have: > pe1-cluster-1 sending prefix X to rr1-cluster1 and rr2-cluster1 and these are > then reflecting it further to RRs in cluster2

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

'; 'Cisco Network Service Providers' Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID) On 13/Mar/18 13:04, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: Keeping RR1s separate from RR2s is all about memory efficiency, That memory saving could now be entering the real of "extreme", but

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 13/Mar/18 13:04, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > Keeping RR1s separate from RR2s is all about memory efficiency, That memory saving could now be entering the real of "extreme", but hey, your network :-)... > > The same rationale is behind having sessions between RRs as

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

Keeping RR1s separate from RR2s is all about memory efficiency, I go with the premise that all I need is a full mesh between RR1s in order to distribute all the routing information across the whole backbone. The exact mirror of RR1s’ infrastructure (same topology, same set of prefixes) but

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 23:04, Saku Ytti wrote: > Quite different thing, right? You won't get balancing for single > prefix to multiple edges with IGP/LDP. you just get multiple paths to > same edge? That is okay for us because we have a very distributed edge, each focusing on being the best path to an

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12 March 2018 at 22:58, Mark Tinka wrote: > We are doing ECMP at the IGP/LDP layer. Quite different thing, right? You won't get balancing for single prefix to multiple edges with IGP/LDP. you just get multiple paths to same edge? -- ++ytti

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 20:43, Saku Ytti wrote: > add-path is not just about backup path, it's also about sending ecmp paths. > > Some vendors do and all vendor should have add-path toggle separately > to how many best paths to send and how many backup paths to send. > You'd likely always want all ECMP

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

add-path is not just about backup path, it's also about sending ecmp paths. Some vendors do and all vendor should have add-path toggle separately to how many best paths to send and how many backup paths to send. You'd likely always want all ECMP paths but at most you care about 1 backup path.

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 19:20, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > With regards to ORR, are you using add-path already or RRs are doing > all the path selection on behalf of clients please? > When Add-Paths (and Diverse-Paths) came out, we did some basic benchmarking for re-route convergence

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 19:36, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > Cluster-ID saves RAM only if RR1 and RR2 are connected like in your > case, if they are not and RR1s only talk to RR1 in other POPs and RR2s > only talk to RR2s in other POPs/Clusters then the Cluster-ID is just > for loop prevention

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 19:14, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > Hmm well ok, I guess if you have one set of static routes on RR1 and > one set of static routes/loopback on RR2 –then sure you might want to > use iBGP session between RR1 and RR2 for redundancy purposes (if say > the particular RR1 is

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

'; 'Cisco Network Service Providers' Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID) On 12/Mar/18 16:19, adamv0...@netconsultings.com <mailto:adamv0...@netconsultings.com> wrote: In iBGP infrastructures I used or built the use of common/unique cluster IDs is not saving any

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

Service Providers' Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID) On 12/Mar/18 13:02, adamv0...@netconsultings.com <mailto:adamv0...@netconsultings.com> wrote: If RR1s and RR2s never talk to each to each other then it doesn't matter whether they have common or unique C

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

solutions for the telecommunications industry:: From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 2:31 PM To: adamv0...@netconsultings.com; 'Job Snijders' Cc: 'Cisco Network Service Providers' Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID) On 12/Mar/18

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 16:19, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > In iBGP infrastructures I used or built the use of common/unique cluster IDs > is not saving any memory and is used solely for preventing a RR to learn its > own advertisements from the network. That saves RAM, otherwise with unique

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 13:54, Saku Ytti wrote: > Typical reason for RR1, RR2 to have iBGP to each other is when they > are in forwarding path and are not dedicated RR, but also have > external BGP to them. Or if the RR's are originating routes themselves. > In your case, if the cluster isn't even

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 13:02, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > If RR1s and RR2s never talk to each to each other then it doesn't matter > whether they have common or unique Cluster-IDs Agreed. But in our case, they do. > Job is right, you should at least use separate TCP sessions for different >

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 12/Mar/18 12:34, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > The only scenario I can think of is if your two RRs say RR1 and RR2 in > a POP > serving a set of clients (by definition a cluster btw) -if these two RRs > have an iBGP session to each other - which is a big NONO when you are using > out

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

:: > -Original Message- > From: Saku Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi] > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:06 PM > To: adamv0...@netconsultings.com > Cc: Job Snijders; Mark Tinka; Cisco Network Service Providers > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID) > > Routin

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 03:06:25PM +0200, Saku Ytti wrote: > Routing loop to me sounds like operational problem, that things are > broken. That will not happen. Indeed, that is what ORIGINATOR_ID is for. Kind regards, Job ___ cisco-nsp mailing list

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

riginator-ID >> should do the job just fine. >> > >> > >> > adam >> > >> > netconsultings.com >> > ::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry:: >> > >> >> -Original Message- >> >> Fr

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

u Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi] > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 11:54 AM > To: adamv0...@netconsultings.com > Cc: Job Snijders; Mark Tinka; Cisco Network Service Providers > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID) > > On 12 March 2018 at 13:41, <adamv0..

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

. > > > adam > > netconsultings.com > ::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry:: > >> -Original Message- >> From: Saku Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi] >> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 10:43 AM >> To: adamv0...@netconsultings.com >> Cc: Job Sni

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

:: > -Original Message- > From: Saku Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi] > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 10:43 AM > To: adamv0...@netconsultings.com > Cc: Job Snijders; Mark Tinka; Cisco Network Service Providers > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID) > >

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

> Job Snijders [mailto:j...@ntt.net] > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 10:51 AM > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:39:13PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: > > Each major PoP has been configured with its unique, global Cluster-ID. > > > > This has been scaling very well for us. > > > > I think the Multiple

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

Hey, RR1---RR2 | | PE1+ 1) PE1 sends 1M routes to RR2, RR2 CaseA) Same clusterID 1) RR1 and RR2 have 1M entries CaseB) Unique clusterID 1) RR1 and RR2 have 2M entries Cluster is promise that every client peers with exactly same set of RRs, so there is no need to for RRs to

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

> Job Snijders > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 12:21 PM > > Folks - i'm gonna cut short here: by sharing the cluster-id across multiple > devices, you lose in topology flexibility, robustness, and simplicity. > Gent's I have no idea what you're talking about. How can one save or burn RAM if

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 11/Mar/18 15:07, Job Snijders wrote: > "32 years and I've not been hit by a bus, so I can stop looking?" > or perhaps, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition ? :-D Glad I'm not the only one crossing streets :-). > One example where shared Cluster-ID is painful, is the fact that

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 02:46:31PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: > On 11/Mar/18 14:20, Job Snijders wrote: > > > Folks - i'm gonna cut short here: by sharing the cluster-id across > > multiple devices, you lose in topology flexibility, robustness, and > > simplicity. > > 11 years across 3 different

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 11/Mar/18 14:20, Job Snijders wrote: > Folks - i'm gonna cut short here: by sharing the cluster-id across > multiple devices, you lose in topology flexibility, robustness, and > simplicity. 11 years across 3 different networks in separate continents - a shared Cluster-ID has never been a

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 01:57:01PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: > On 11/Mar/18 12:50, Job Snijders wrote: > > Have you considered the downsides of sharing a Cluster-ID across > > multiple boxes, > > IIRC, the biggest issue with this was if the RR was in-path (as it > used to be back in the days - and

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 11/Mar/18 12:50, Job Snijders wrote: > Have you considered the downsides of sharing a Cluster-ID across > multiple boxes, IIRC, the biggest issue with this was if the RR was in-path (as it used to be back in the days - and in some networks today - when core routers doubled as RR's), and

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:39:13PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: > Each major PoP has been configured with its unique, global Cluster-ID. > > This has been scaling very well for us. > > I think the Multiple Cluster-ID is overkill. Have you considered the downsides of sharing a Cluster-ID across

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

On 5/Mar/18 14:22, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > No, hierarchical RR infrastructure is a bad idea altogether. It was not > needed way back with c7200 as RRs in Tier1 SPs backbones and its certainly > not needed now. > Just keep it simple. > You don't need full mesh between all your

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

> Curtis Piehler > Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2018 3:51 AM > > I presume this is supported in IOS-XR but just making sure. > > A network across the country is split up into multiple regions. Each region > housing two RRs where the local region clients peer with them. > Instead of full meshing

Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

Why are you using RR clusterID? ClusterID should be loopback, unless you can extremely well justify your position to do anything else. ClusterID is legacy of era when DRAM was extremely premium, the DRAM cost of having unique ClusterID is extremely marginal. The benefit of having unique

[c-nsp] IOS-XR BGP RR MCID (Multiple Cluster ID)

I presume this is supported in IOS-XR but just making sure. A network across the country is split up into multiple regions. Each region housing two RRs where the local region clients peer with them. Instead of full meshing all of the regional RR consider a tiered topology. 3-4 of the regional RR