Hi,
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 08:01:22AM +, Harivishnu Abhilash wrote:
> Thanks for the response. But we were quite surprised as the 6800 was
> doing EoMPLS perfectly.
It's based on 6500 architecture, which has done MPLS and EoMPLS (and,
depending on Supervisor generation, also VPLS) "since
the
IBGP between to routers up (like a backup path)
Ta
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 10:02 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [c-nsp] l2tpv3 Issues on
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, at 03:38, Hari . wrote:
> Hello Team,
>
> We are trying to extend the L2doamin for IP cloud (non-mpls), the
> intention was to use l2tpv3, but it doesn't seem to be supported in
> 6800/3850
> Anyone tried or can provide some guidance
Hi,
First things first : DON'T !
More
Hello Team,
We are trying to extend the L2doamin for IP cloud (non-mpls), the intention was
to use l2tpv3, but it doesn't seem to be supported in 6800/3850
Anyone tried or can provide some guidance
Ta,
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nethe
ject: Re: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 ME3600 and SIP10 ASR1006
> CC: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
>
>
>
> On 31/Mar/15 18:23, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
> > It does, starting from 3.13S:
> > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr920/release/notes/ASR920_rel_notes/new_f
On 31/Mar/15 18:23, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
> It does, starting from 3.13S:
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr920/release/notes/ASR920_rel_notes/new_features.html
Happy days.
Mark.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> On 31 Mar 2015, at 16:41, Mark Tinka wrote:
> If the ASR1000 does, then the CSR1000v would do it too. I assumed the
> ASR1000 didn't support it because it was a "hardware" box. But yes,
> considering the make-up of the QFP, it would make sense.
>
> So that leaves boxes built on IOS XR. As tho
> On 31 Mar 2015, at 16:19, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On 31/Mar/15 16:04, James Bensley wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah ISRG2 boxes do support L2TPv3. I have very successfully deployed
>> them in very forgettable ways.
>
> Okay.
>
> So safe to say any software-based router should support it (excluding
> VM-bas
On 31/Mar/15 16:35, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
> Theses days ‘software’ is becoming too general.
Right :-)...
>
> QFP on ASR1k are in essence programmable CPUs but with scalability
> and performance similar to hardware platforms.
>
> L2TPv3 is supported on all ISRs, including the new 44xx series,
ASR1K can also do L2TPv3.
Arie
On Mar 31, 2015 7:20 AM, "Mark Tinka" wrote:
>
>
> On 31/Mar/15 16:04, James Bensley wrote:
>
> >
> > Yeah ISRG2 boxes do support L2TPv3. I have very successfully deployed
> > them in very forgettable ways.
>
> Okay.
>
> So safe to say any software-based router sho
On 31/Mar/15 16:04, James Bensley wrote:
>
> Yeah ISRG2 boxes do support L2TPv3. I have very successfully deployed
> them in very forgettable ways.
Okay.
So safe to say any software-based router should support it (excluding
VM-based images, of course).
Mark.
__
On 31 March 2015 at 15:00, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 31/Mar/15 15:47, James Bensley wrote:
>>
>> No, MPLS PWE3 only on those boxes.
>
> I could be wrong, but I think the only boxes that support L2TPv3 are the
> 7200 and the older 2800 and 3800 boxes.
>
> Don't know about the newer 1900/2900/3900
On 31/Mar/15 15:47, James Bensley wrote:
>
> No, MPLS PWE3 only on those boxes.
I could be wrong, but I think the only boxes that support L2TPv3 are the
7200 and the older 2800 and 3800 boxes.
Don't know about the newer 1900/2900/3900 ones.
Mark.
___
On 31 March 2015 at 14:17, Jordi Magrané Roig wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I have two questions for you.
>
> Does the ME3600 supports L2TPv3 pseudowires?
No, MPLS PWE3 only on those boxes.
James.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Dear colleagues,
I have two questions for you.
Does the ME3600 supports L2TPv3 pseudowires? The IOS version 15.4(2) supports
the configuration but the pseudowire doesn't work.
The second question is regarding SIPs and ESP in ASR1006. If I have two ESP20
(active/standby) and 3 SIP10, how many
Hello all,
i was told the cisco 3745 supports the l2tpv3. is it right? anyone successfully
set it up on gns3? if yes, what ver of the GNS3 and ver of the Ciscio IOS?
thanks
Le
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether
Hi,
We have a new requirement to load balance across a couple of point to point
ethernet links.
The previous solution was handled by a few TDM circuits and MLPPP so that
traffic was load balanced and any fragmentation/reassembly was handled by
ML/PPP.
Load balancing per flow is not really an opt
Hi All,
I am trying to establish L2TPv3 VLAN-to-VLAN based pseudowire between Cisco
NPE-G2 and ASR 9001 routers but could not bring the pseudowire up and end
to end reachability.
Below are the configuration:
ASR:
RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:LAB-ASR1#sh run l2vpn
Tue Sep 10 22:50:02.204 UTC
l2vpn
pw-class t
Hello,
Is there a way or simple solution to terminate a bunch of "plain" L2TPv3
pseudowires to a BVI, to have a sort of VPLS? (VPLS/MPLS is not an option
in my setup).
My deal is to have a distributed L2 architecture (I have a protocol that
works only on L2), and it must traverse a non-ethernet
d.
For what it's worth an EoMPLS VC is way easier to deal with than L2TPv3 once
you get your core set up.
Cheers
Ross
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Aaron
Sent: August-30-12 11:27 AM
To: cisco-n
Hi,
L2tpv3 does not work well with the embedded switch-ports on the 870/1800
Routers since they tend to collect the stp/dot-q/.. pakets.
With 1812 and the two "real" Fastethernet ports, Stp and also
full-ethernetframe including dot-q tags get transmitted.
So I used one of the switch-ports in v
ryption of that Cable.
Hope this help's,
Juergen.
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> boun...@puck.nether.net] Im Auftrag von Aaron
> Gesendet: jeudi 30 août 2012 18:32
> An: 'Arie Vayner (avayner)'; cisco-nsp
ryption of that Cable.
Hope this help's,
Juergen.
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> boun...@puck.nether.net] Im Auftrag von Aaron
> Gesendet: jeudi 30 août 2012 18:32
> An: 'Arie Vayner (avayner)'; cisco-nsp
L2TPv3 need data license, while L2TP available even w/o data license, if
nothing changed since introduction of ISR G2 licenses.
On 30.08.2012 19:56, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:
> You should be able to deploy L2TPv3 with the smaller ISR routers... The 800
> series support it (not sure what softwa
-Original Message-
From: Arie Vayner (avayner) [mailto:avay...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:57 AM
To: Aaron; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] l2tpv3
Aaron,
You should be able to deploy L2TPv3 with the smaller ISR routers... The 800
series support it (not sur
: Thursday, August 30, 2012 08:27
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] l2tpv3
What is the smallest/cheapest cisco router that supports L2TPv3?
I work at an isp and have small/medium sized businesses that occasionally want
transparent lan connectivity between their sites (which are
What is the smallest/cheapest cisco router that supports L2TPv3?
I work at an isp and have small/medium sized businesses that occasionally
want transparent lan connectivity between their sites (which are connected
via FTTH, DSL, Cable Modem).
Is L2TPv3 tunneling the way to go for something
Le 08/12/2010 14:00, Ziv Leyes a écrit :
We tried to make a pseudowire yesterday with the following setup:
Side A has a certain device connected to C3750 Switch on port 19.
Port 20 on C3750 Switch is set as trunk and it's connected to C7200VXR router
port g0/1
The xconnect is done on subinterfa
Not sure I understand your answer, Jefri...
-Original Message-
From: je...@grid.ui.edu [mailto:je...@grid.ui.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 3:13 PM
To: Ziv Leyes; cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 question
You have to
We tried to make a pseudowire yesterday with the following setup:
Side A has a certain device connected to C3750 Switch on port 19.
Port 20 on C3750 Switch is set as trunk and it's connected to C7200VXR router
port g0/1
The xconnect is done on subinterface G0/1.200 (VLAN200 dot1q encapsulation
Th
I have to do an L2TPv3 link (hoping it can move entire 802.1Q streams)
and I'm puzzling over which version of IOS is best. I have a 7206 /w NPE 300
on one side and a 7140 on the other, would like to use the same code on
both.
And where the heck can I get schooled on the plethora of trains ava
Dear Internet Geniuses,
I am attempting to set up a solution for a customer where we provide a
multipoint Layer 2 bridge over several DSL connections. Unfortunately,
the DSL connections are leased and outside of our control. The wholesale
provider's network complained to no end believing there was
Ziv,
Take a look here:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/docs/ios/qos/configuration/guide/qos_
mqc.html#wp1060197
Arie
From: Ziv Leyes [mailto:z...@gilat.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:35
To: Arie Vayner
Cc: Arie Vayner (avayner); Cisco-nsp
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 Tunnel
router too, while also guaranteeing its priority.
Thanks,
Ziv
From: Arie Vayner [mailto:arievay...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:43 AM
To: Ziv Leyes
Cc: Arie Vayner (avayner); Cisco-nsp
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 Tunnel bandwidth and QoS
Ziv,
You need to apply a nested policy...
gt; class CUSTOMER
> priority 2000
> police rate 200
> !
>
> Ziv
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Arie Vayner (avayner) [mailto:avay...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 6:12 PM
> To: Ziv Leyes; Cisco-nsp
> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 Tunnel bandwidth
olice rate 200
!
Ziv
-Original Message-
From: Arie Vayner (avayner) [mailto:avay...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 6:12 PM
To: Ziv Leyes; Cisco-nsp
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 Tunnel bandwidth and QoS
Ziv,
You should be able to match the tunnel by matching it's IP endpoints
t] On Behalf Of Ziv Leyes
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:15
To: Cisco-nsp
Subject: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 Tunnel bandwidth and QoS
Hi all,
I'd like to know if there is a feasible way to guarantee QoS for an
L2TPv3 tunnel
My customer has a 13Mb uplink to the internet and we've set a tunnel
between cu
Hi all,
I'd like to know if there is a feasible way to guarantee QoS for an L2TPv3
tunnel
My customer has a 13Mb uplink to the internet and we've set a tunnel between
customer's router and one of our routers, we want to perform some settings on
his side that will assure the L2TP tunnel gets alwa
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Benny Amorsen wrote:
> "Paul Stewart" writes:
> Generally problems with PMTU are caused by people blocking ICMP in their
> (usually PIX/ASA) firewalls. If you control the whole path, you can make
> sure that you're not one of the culprits.
For the topic of PMTUD
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Benny Amorsen wrote:
"Paul Stewart" writes:
On a related note to the PS below... we have tested lt2tpv3 on a few
different boxes running various IOS images and on each of the devices we did
test we seen the same behavior. This means something is either broke in the
cod
"Paul Stewart" writes:
> On a related note to the PS below... we have tested lt2tpv3 on a few
> different boxes running various IOS images and on each of the devices we did
> test we seen the same behavior. This means something is either broke in the
> code in my opinion or that we are doing som
al Message-
From: Ge Moua [mailto:moua0...@umn.edu]
Sent: June 18, 2009 11:33 AM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: 'Ziv Leyes'; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 and VLANs
Yep, ran into that to; on the upstream layer-3 hop from hosts do
something like "tcp-mss adjust 1300&
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Paul Stewart wrote:
I must admit - I didn't know such an option existed... and that's great to
know...
I myself discovered it by accident when I saw the MTU on my linux box to
be not the 1500 :-)
On a related note to the PS below... we have tested lt2tpv3 on a few
@cisco.com]
Sent: June 18, 2009 10:32 PM
To: Ge Moua
Cc: Paul Stewart; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 and VLANs
Hi Ge,
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Ge Moua wrote:
[snip]
> I haven't done this yet but one can adjust max segment size on end-station
> hosts to somethin
Hi Ge,
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Ge Moua wrote:
[snip]
I haven't done this yet but one can adjust max segment size on end-station
hosts to something like 1300 (which of course would affect all protocol
types); there are open source tools to do this, but downside is that all the
end-station hosts
nal Message-
From: Ge Moua [mailto:moua0...@umn.edu]
Sent: June 18, 2009 11:33 AM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: 'Ziv Leyes'; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 and VLANs
Yep, ran into that to; on the upstream layer-3 hop from hosts do
something like "tcp-mss adjust 1
AM
To: Ziv Leyes
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 and VLANs
> How do I make this happen on the HQ router?
Each l2tp tunnel will have its own vc: "sh l2tun all"
You obviously have thoughts this all out as your logic for how it
will and should work is s
as we have some great l2tpv3 deployments waiting in the
wings...
Paul
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ge Moua
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:44 AM
To: Ziv Leyes
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L
-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ge Moua
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:44 AM
To: Ziv Leyes
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 and VLANs
> How do I make this happen on the HQ router?
Each l2tp tunnel will have its own vc: "
> How do I make this happen on the HQ router?
Each l2tp tunnel will have its own vc: "sh l2tun all"
You obviously have thoughts this all out as your logic for how it will
and should work is sound.
We are doing a very similar setup over here at the UofMn and this is
working well for us.
Hi,
I'm trying to make sure this following scenario can work.
3 remote sites, one is the HQ which has a switch that handles 2 vlans, let's
say vlan 10 and vlan 20.
The other two branches needs to be connected to the HQ and have a flat LAN
between them and the HQ, but each branch to it's own vlan,
The (2) scenarios is:
* L2TPv3 vc w/ no ecryption
vs.
* L2TPv3 vc w/ IPSec encryption (encapsulated inside of)
One can also do layer-2 VPN with MPLS, eg, AToM (EoMPLS), but I think
the initial thread was about L2TPv3 (layer-2 VPN inside native IP).
Persoanally I like the AToM/EoMPLS (or even V
What does that have to do with L2TPv3?
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:09, Ge Moua wrote:
> I've done testing for both:
> * no encryption: ~ 980Mb
> * encryption ~ 240 Mb
>
> Performance dependent on router platform (in my case 7203 w/ NSE-100)
>
> Encryption was on 7206 w/ NPE-G1 & VAM2+
>
> Conclusi
I've done testing for both:
* no encryption: ~ 980Mb
* encryption ~ 240 Mb
Performance dependent on router platform (in my case 7203 w/ NSE-100)
Encryption was on 7206 w/ NPE-G1 & VAM2+
Conclusion, performance limited to hardware used and not layer-1 link speed.
Regards,
Ge Moua | Email: mou
nothing more than doing mpls. Actually a little less since you don't have
ldp going
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 09:55, Chris Fournier wrote:
> Does anyone use L2TPv3 over a gig link, and what is the performance
> overhead introduced? I've seen some numbers at the Cisco website, but
> these seem to re
Does anyone use L2TPv3 over a gig link, and what is the performance
overhead introduced? I've seen some numbers at the Cisco website, but
these seem to reference encryption versus encapsulation.
Chris
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.n
o 80.91.151.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
.
Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
r1841#
-Original Message-
From: Cheikh-Moussa Ahmad [mailto:a...@axians.de]
Sent: lundi 4 mai 2009 9:45
To: Rens
Subject: AW: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 with MTU difference
Hi Rens,
1518 is too big for a FastEthernet Interface. Di
Nobody that can help me with this?
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Rens
Sent: vendredi 17 avril 2009 14:43
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 with MTU difference
Hi,
I have an OSPF
: Monday, April 27, 2009 10:16
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 "LNS mode"
Hi,
I received some kind orientation from Cisco on this matter. This
function is called "Routed Pseudowire Support", and is documented at
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/
Hi,
I received some kind orientation from Cisco on this matter. This
function is called "Routed Pseudowire Support", and is documented at
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2sr/release/notes/122SRrn.html
regards,
Gabor
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Gabor Ivanszky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is
Hi,
I have an OSPF broadcast configured with several routers.
Some of the routers have a higher MTU then others so I use ip ospf mtu
ignore on all the neighbours. (to compensate with the fragmentation at
higher bandwidths)
I have routers with mtu 1600 and others have the default 1500 be
I only found CSCso12545 (l2tp-class encrypted password recalculated
after every 'show run'), but without any resolution so far.. Feel free
to contact TAC.
oli
Jared Gillis <> wrote on Wednesday, April 01, 2009 01:45:
> I'm seeing this behavior as well on a 7204VXR, and google only turns
I'm seeing this behavior as well on a 7204VXR, and google only turns up two
threads on c-nsp that have no replies.
Is this expected? Is there a workaround?
Lars Lystrup Christensen wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> When configuring L2TPv3 on one of our routers, I've noticed that the
> password k
One could send this over vanilla crypto IPSec; IPSec is routable. We
are doing this over here.
Regards,
Ge Moua | Email: moua0...@umn.edu
Network Design Engineer
University of Minnesota | Networking & Telecommunications Services
Gabor Ivanszky wrote:
Hello,
is there any possibility to rou
Hello,
is there any possibility to route(L3 process) Ethernet encapsulated IP
packets arriving at a Cisco router in a L2TPv3 tunnel?
In other words, is it possible to configure a Cisco box in LNS role in
an Ethernet L2TPv3 setup?
" L2TP Network Server (LNS)
If a given L2TP session is termi
...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Howard Jones
Sent: mardi 10 mars 2009 11:01
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] L2TPv3 sizing?
Can anyone point me to any documentation/whitepaper regarding router
sizing for L2TPv3 throughput? We're tryi
Can anyone point me to any documentation/whitepaper regarding router
sizing for L2TPv3 throughput? We're trying to understand what the
startup cost would be for a couple of ~100Mbit/sec L2TPv3
ethernet-to-ethernet tunnels as an alternative to a full MPLS solution.
Is there any Cisco (or 3rd party)
@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] l2tpv3 config - MTU question
Ok, I see.
Are you seeing this with more than one test workstation. I wonder if it
is a end-station issue.
df=off should allow for large ping payloads
what is the syntax you are using on the end-workstation.
Regards,
Ge Moua | Email
ing fragmented;)
Cheers,
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Ge Moua [mailto:moua0...@umn.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 12:11 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] l2tpv3 config - MTU question
We've got about a half-dozen sites deployed on this, wi
ilto:moua0...@umn.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 12:11 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] l2tpv3 config - MTU question
We've got about a half-dozen sites deployed on this, with about 1000
user base total, and it's running most fine, caveats:
*
nt: Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:50 AM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] l2tpv3 config - MTU question
I was tackling a similar issue over here too, I think it may have to do
with the fact that l2tpv3 and ethernet headers are taking some of the
mtu allocation.
r time...
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Ge Moua [mailto:moua0...@umn.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:50 AM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] l2tpv3 config - MTU question
I was tackling a similar issue over here too, I think it may have to do
I was tackling a similar issue over here too, I think it may have to do
with the fact that l2tpv3 and ethernet headers are taking some of the
mtu allocation.
Regards,
Ge Moua | Email: moua0...@umn.edu
Network Design Engineer
University of Minnesota | Networking & Telecommunications Services
Hi folks.
I've setup a pair of 1841's back to back for testing l2tpv3 deployment for a
client..
FastE0/0 from each 1841 is connected to one another at 10.0.0.0/24 - each
router has a loopback of 192.168.254.1 and .2 - OSPF is running and am able
to successfully ping each other's loopback w
Hi all,
When configuring L2TPv3 on one of our routers, I've noticed that the
password keeps changing all the time, even tough the configuration has
not been altered.
The router is a 1811 running 12.4(6)T11 Advanced IP Services.
__
Med venlig hilsen /
Good morning list.
I have had an odd version discrepancy before between 12.0S and 12.4 in the
past; in particular, I tried to have a 12.0S-running 12012 act as working and
a 7505 running 12.4 as protect on an APS-protected OC3; but this did not
work; the protect and the working would not negoti
Here is the current config. I'm trying to gain access to vlan 77 on the remote
side (10.77.0.0/16).
Thanks!
--Steve
central side:
l2tp-class l2-dyn
authentication
hostname ADM
password somepassword
cookie size 8
!
pseudowire-class pw-dynamic
encapsulation l2tpv3
protocol l2tpv3 l2-dyn
What boxes?
I saw this once with the 3845 (I think it was) where the LAN interface
was not going in to promiscuous mode to rx all mac frames.
Check the VC and see if you only see tx or rx counters and on which
box.
Also check 'sh controller' to see if there is a promiscuous mode in it.
Rodney
I've got an L2TPv3 tunnel set up between our central location and one of our
remote sites. Everything looks OK, but data is only flowing one way (from the
central side to the remote side, it looks like). Has anyone seen anything like
this?
Thanks!
Steve Pfister
Technical Coordinator,
The Offi
In configuring L2TPv3, I'm getting:
Jun 25 10:07:20.077: uid:43 Tnl/Sn 32862/8086 L2TP: Session state change from
wait-connect to wait-for-service-selection-icrq
Jun 25 10:07:20.077: uid:43 Tnl/Sn 32862/8086 L2TP: Started service selection,
peer IP address 192.168.7.1, VCID 77
Jun 25 10:07:20.08
I think I'm making some progress on my L2TPv3 testing (between two 3640s). It
looks like the tunnel is being established, but then it tries to bring up a
session within that tunnel. One side sends an ICRQ to the other. That other
side responds by sending a service request to SSS. I'm not certain
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Leif Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeffrey Ollie writes:
> >
> > Should I be using something other than L2TPv3?
>
> Well, no. But in addition and in-line you should be using
> something like a cheap 1RU server with linux installed on it.
As much as I like L
Jeffrey Ollie writes:
> I have two 2811 routers that I'm setting up to bridge a L2
> VLAN across our WAN to support some POS systems that need to
> be on the same L2 VLAN. I've gotten a L2TPv3 tunnel set up
> between the routers and passing packets. However, I'd like
> to add an access list t
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Bernd Ueberbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I asked almost the same question some time ago and got this answer:
>
> > > Is it possible to interfere the L2TP traffic with access-lists?
> >
> > No. Not on the access side.
>
> A bit later I got the explanation:
Hi!
I asked almost the same question some time ago and got this answer:
>> Is it possible to interfere the L2TP traffic with access-lists?
>>
>
> No. Not on the access side.
A bit later I got the explanation:
"AFAIK no. The features applied on ingress are not evaluated on
L3 info. We simply
I have two 2811 routers that I'm setting up to bridge a L2 VLAN across
our WAN to support some POS systems that need to be on the same L2
VLAN. I've gotten a L2TPv3 tunnel set up between the routers and
passing packets. However, I'd like to add an access list to prevent
traffic like OSPF, PIM, an
Paul Stewart <> wrote on Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:08 PM:
> Is there anyway with l2tpv3 to map point to multipoint service? What
> I'm really looking for is to replace an existing VPN configuration
> with TLS type service but I don't believe l2tpv3 is going to do what
> I want..
>
> Basical
Hi folks.
Is there anyway with l2tpv3 to map point to multipoint service? What I'm
really looking for is to replace an existing VPN configuration with TLS type
service but I don't believe l2tpv3 is going to do what I want..
Basically, one hub site (Cisco 2811) and 8 remote sites (Cisco 181
I got a pair of 2811s yesterday that are going to be providing a
L2TPv3 tunnel between two VLANs across our WAN (some crazy department
bought an application that needs to be deployed at two different
campuses yet they need to be on the same L2 VLAN). Anyway, I've got
the 2811s up and running in my
hey,
> Is someone on this list using L2TPv3 in a simple, static setup,
> plain ethernet Xconnect, running on c1841?
I have one 1812 <> 7200 and it works just fine
--
tarko
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/m
Is someone on this list using L2TPv3 in a simple, static setup,
plain ethernet Xconnect, running on c1841?
What is the smallest platform available for such a setup?
Thanks!
--
Philippe Strauss
av. de Beaulieu 25
1004 Lausanne
http://philou.ch
___
cisc
Philippe,
I'm not sure this will be a problem: I have seen L2TPv3 tunnels
successfully transmitting large packets over FastEthernet links (which,
AFAIK, are also MTU 1500).
I believe L2TP has some kind of MTU discovery + fragmentation mechanism.
V
Philippe Strauss wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We need
Hello,
We need to offer a cheap "bridge" or "transparent" to ethernet layer
frame for 2 sites of a customer.
First I thought "ok, let's try L2TPv3 across SDSL*", but a closer look and
the MTU problem came to my mind: the ADSL* network is limited to 1500 bytes MTU.
Any idea of alternatives beside
I've got a 3750 set up to monitor some switchports, and have the SPAN
destination
terminated into a 7206-G2 ethernet port.
On the 7206, I've configured an L2TPv3 pseudowire, using the
"internetworking ethernet"
modifier, and drive that tunnel across the wan to another 7206, where
the tunnel
is t
#x27;ve been dissapointed :(
>>
>>
>> Josh
>>
>> CCIE 16024
>>> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 18:11:44 -0400
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] l2tpv3 support in 12.2(33)SXH
>>>
>
waiting, but I've been dissapointed :(
>
>
> Josh
>
> CCIE 16024
>> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 18:11:44 -0400
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] l2tpv3 support in 12.2(33)SXH
>>
>> Just for the sake of the Ci
I would love it if l2tpv3 existed in any 6500 release...I've been waiting, but
I've been dissapointed :(
Josh
CCIE 16024
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 18:11:44 -0400
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] l2tpv3 support in 12.2(33
Just for the sake of the Cisco employees watching:
I would give up my first born to have L2TPv3 (or EoMPLS but that's
unlikely) available on the ME3400 / 3550 / 3560
:-)
Matt Carter wrote:
>> I would say Feature Navigator is incorrect. There is no mention of L2TPv3
>> in the Release Notes fo
>
> I would say Feature Navigator is incorrect. There is no mention of L2TPv3
> in the Release Notes for SXH.
>
no. say it isn't true. the cisco feature navigator wrong? NEVER.
imho, biggest mistake you could possible make is to look at what the feature
navigator says and tell someone above yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Juan Angel Menendez wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> According to Feature Navigator, l2tpv3 is supported in 12.2(33)SXH.
> But I couldn't find any documentation on how to configure this
> feature on the Sup720.
>
> I've tried this versio
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
