Here is what we do...
router isis
interface TenGigabitEthernet0/0/0/0
circuit-type level-2-only
bfd minimum-interval 50
bfd multiplier 5
bfd fast-detect ipv4
We keep the same config for local and long haul core links. Works like a champ
every time.
Also as a FYI if you are
Mark,
Your solutions sounds like the best one.
We have just started to mess with Selective download and we have only turned it
on for one of the PE’s in our network. I am in the process of upgrading our
Core routers from Cisco12410 to ASR9906’s, before I turn this one. Having the
PE decide
On 4/May/18 08:01, Erik Sundberg wrote:
> My questions is how do I get traffic to go directly between the PE's without
> going to the Core Routers?
>
> 1. Can I enable iBGP between the PE's in a full mesh to allow traffic between
> the PE's without going to the core's. Or does this break the
On 17/Mar/18 12:29, Hari . wrote:
> Checking on best practice being followed with regards to enabling NSF or NSR
> or both on ASR 9k. Which option can be beneficial and considered to be a
> standard approach.
See https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2014-November/071600.html
from 2014.
On 22/Mar/18 10:47, James Bensley wrote:
> Have you looked at testing and adding this command to your IOS devices:
>
> ip routing protocol purge interface
In all recent versions of IOS, this command is now standard and is
elided from the running configuration.
Mark.
On 21/Mar/18 19:10, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> A few years ago I did some testing and found that the time between the
> transceiver detecting LOS and the routing protocol (ISIS in this case) being
> informed that the link was down (triggering the recalculation) took longer
> than it took BFD to
As the zero touch feature is on TCP 4786 (SMI), I vote for either:
- a nsa backdoor :-)
- a default active service
Have you tried to zeroize the config and restart then check if TCP 6154
is still on LISTEN state ?
-
Marcel
On 03.05.2018 06:51, frederic.jut...@sig-telecom.net wrote:
> Hi,
>
7 matches
Mail list logo
