[c-nsp] cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 94, Issue 104

Mon Sep 27 21:43:39 EDT 2010

U
-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-request at puck.nether.net
Sender: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:17:52 
To: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Reply-To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 94, Issue 104

Send cisco-nsp mailing list submissions to
	cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	cisco-nsp-request at puck.nether.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	cisco-nsp-owner at puck.nether.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cisco-nsp digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: SFP info (Ingen Schenau, Jeroen van (ICTS))
   2. Nexus evolution (Seth Mattinen)
   3. Re: cisco MPLS AutoBandwidth Allocator (Peter Rathlev)
   4. Re: Nexus evolution (Chris Evans)
   5. Re: ISR G2 performance (Peter Rathlev)
   6. Re: Nexus evolution (David Freedman)
   7. Re: Nexus evolution (Tim Stevenson)
   8. Re: Nexus evolution (Quinn Snyder)
   9. Cisco 4900M BGP Support (Jimmy Changa)
  10. Re: Cisco 4900M BGP Support (Charles Klement)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:58:17 +0200
From: "Ingen Schenau, Jeroen van (ICTS)"
	<j.vaningenschenau at utwente.nl>
To: jack daniels <jckdaniels12 at gmail.com>
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] SFP info
Message-ID: <1285603097.5643.178.camel at icts-sp-039>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

> If I use SFP LX connector and coonect two routers ports back to back.
> Will this have any impact on router port .

No impact, it should work. You can connect LX transceivers back to back;
iirc, minimum patch length is somewhere around 0.5 to 2 meters.

> Is that I can use only SX SFP for Back to back connectivity with routers.

No, LX or BX are OK too. Only with ZX or other long-haul optics you
might need an attenuator.

> Also if my router port is coonecting to MUX which is colocated , I
> need to mandatorly use SX SFP.

That depends on what the MUX supports, I guess... SX is generally used
on short distances since the optics are cheaper.

Regards,

Jeroen van Ingen
ICT Service Centre
University of Twente, P.O.Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:32:07 -0700
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us>
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Nexus evolution
Message-ID: <4CA0C707.3030908 at rollernet.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

About a year ago there were some large-ish threads on the Nexus and a
couple people that had them in production had commented that there were
bugs that made them feel like test subjects, plus a various assortment
of unexpected limitations. How much has this changed over the last year?

I do notice that the 2248TP fabric extender supports direct to 7k, and
the 22xxTP datasheet lists 100/1000 as supported speeds. I've been
researching a 7k as a candidate for a small colo datacenter, and to me
it seems like it's matured quite a bit (on paper, anyway).

~Seth

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:34:57 +0200
From: Peter Rathlev <peter at rathlev.dk>
To: jack daniels <jckdaniels12 at gmail.com>
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] cisco MPLS AutoBandwidth Allocator
Message-ID: <1285605297.11014.9.camel at abehat.dyn.net.rm.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 09:21 +0530, jack daniels wrote:
> I'm stuck in the understanding - does oit make sense to implement MPLS
> AutoBandwidth in scenario where I have only 20 subnets max to be sent
> on this Backbone.

AutoBandwidth gives you the advantage of having the network recalculate
LSPs every now and then. This can (partly) overcome the scenario where
the specific time of establishing an LSP would have a negative effect on
how it's built.

If you use TE extensively and have one or more paths that are
oversubscribed (via RSVP) then AutoBandwidth may be used to shift around
some of the paths to (maybe) achieve a better utilisation.

If you don't have overlapping TE tunnels there's no point in using
AutoBandwidth. If you have plenty capacity (i.e. the sum of bandwidth of
all tunnels is less than you "narrowest" link's capacity) there's also
no need IMO.

I your network is carefully engineered off-line and you never want the
network to change you engineering you also don't need AutoBandwidth.

-- 
Peter

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:37:44 -0400
From: Chris Evans <chrisccnpspam2 at gmail.com>
To: Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us>
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Nexus evolution
Message-ID:
	<AANLkTikMJycxzWzv4_7ds6+c1rmF8MaOowfRFO+6qUsB at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

We are deploying 7-5-2 like mad.

Stable platform for its age.
On Sep 27, 2010 12:34 PM, "Seth Mattinen" <sethm at rollernet.us> wrote:
> About a year ago there were some large-ish threads on the Nexus and a
> couple people that had them in production had commented that there were
> bugs that made them feel like test subjects, plus a various assortment
> of unexpected limitations. How much has this changed over the last year?
>
> I do notice that the 2248TP fabric extender supports direct to 7k, and
> the 22xxTP datasheet lists 100/1000 as supported speeds. I've been
> researching a 7k as a candidate for a small colo datacenter, and to me
> it seems like it's matured quite a bit (on paper, anyway).
>
> ~Seth
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:41:16 +0200
From: Peter Rathlev <peter at rathlev.dk>
To: Keegan Holley <keegan.holley at sungard.com>
Cc: Cisco NSPs <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ISR G2 performance
Message-ID: <1285605676.11014.15.camel at abehat.dyn.net.rm.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 11:33 -0400, Keegan Holley wrote:
> I'm a little annoyed by their stance though.  I just want them to make a
> recommendation that I can use instead of trying to fill my head with
> marketing nonsense.

I personally don't see "routerperformance.pdf" as marketing nonsense. It
gives you a basic figure to work with and makes it possible to compare
different platforms.

Of course a set of standard cases could be documented, e.g. "simple NAT,
one inside and one outside interface" or "simple LLQ with this specific
configuration". But one man's standard setup is an exotic setup for many
of his colleagues.

If Cisco were to announce "best case" forwarding figures, I would call
that marketing nonsense. :-)

-- 
Peter

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:45:15 +0100
From: David Freedman <david.freedman at uk.clara.net>
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Nexus evolution
Message-ID: <i7qhmr$mc7$1 at dough.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Seth Mattinen wrote:
> About a year ago there were some large-ish threads on the Nexus and a
> couple people that had them in production had commented that there were
> bugs that made them feel like test subjects, plus a various assortment
> of unexpected limitations. How much has this changed over the last year?
> 
> I do notice that the 2248TP fabric extender supports direct to 7k, and
> the 22xxTP datasheet lists 100/1000 as supported speeds. I've been
> researching a 7k as a candidate for a small colo datacenter, and to me
> it seems like it's matured quite a bit (on paper, anyway).
> 

I believe that this direct-to-7k support is only just being released in
s/w (aug/sep) and it will be limted to 32 FEX per 7k (and fex must be
2248 or 2232, 2148 not supported)

If this doesn't work for you then you need to retain your 5k agg layer.

Dave.

> ~Seth
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> 

-- 

David Freedman
Group Network Engineering
Claranet Group

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:01:12 -0700
From: Tim Stevenson <tstevens at cisco.com>
To: "David Freedman" <david.freedman at uk.clara.net>,
	<cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Nexus evolution
Message-ID: <201009271701.o8RH1aK7010158 at sj-core-3.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Next major s/w release (Cairo, release # most likely to be 5.1) 
supports 2248 to n7k directly. 2232 comes a bit later (within 6-8 months).

Hope that helps,
Tim

At 09:45 AM 9/27/2010, David Freedman declared:
>I believe that this direct-to-7k support is only just being released in
>s/w (aug/sep) and it will be limted to 32 FEX per 7k (and fex must be
>2248 or 2232, 2148 not supported)

Tim Stevenson, tstevens at cisco.com
Routing & Switching CCIE #5561
Distinguished Technical Marketing Engineer, Cisco Nexus 7000
Cisco - http://www.cisco.com
IP Phone: 408-526-6759
********************************************************
The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential*
and are intended for the specified recipients only.

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:08:32 -0700
From: Quinn Snyder <snyderq at gmail.com>
To: Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us>
Cc: "cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net" <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Nexus evolution
Message-ID: <6782444192350391537 at unknownmsgid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

we are deploying them in ~50 sites (mix of 7010, 7018). smattering of
5k/2248 when needed. using them in a collapsed core (agg, core vdc
model) to replace existing 650x/sup720 cores.
running light services (eigrp, qos, multicast) but using vpc to
provide full redundancy between 45xx/65xx closets.
seemed like a decent choice based on lifecycle and the release of 5.0
for the 7k.  does what we need it to do and redundancy is there.
still feels rough, but nowhere like it used to be.

q.

-= sent via iphone. please excuse spelling, grammar, and brevity =-

On Sep 27, 2010, at 9:32, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us> wrote:

> About a year ago there were some large-ish threads on the Nexus and a
> couple people that had them in production had commented that there were
> bugs that made them feel like test subjects, plus a various assortment
> of unexpected limitations. How much has this changed over the last year?
>
> I do notice that the 2248TP fabric extender supports direct to 7k, and
> the 22xxTP datasheet lists 100/1000 as supported speeds. I've been
> researching a 7k as a candidate for a small colo datacenter, and to me
> it seems like it's matured quite a bit (on paper, anyway).
>
> ~Seth
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:56:47 -0400
From: "Jimmy Changa" <jimmy.changa007 at gmail.com>
To: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: [c-nsp] Cisco 4900M BGP Support
Message-ID: <006601cb5e86$80d56b50$828041f0$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Greetings,

Does anyone know if the Cisco 4900M support full BGP tables? Are their
limits to the number of routes they support? I'm running 12.2(53)SG2
Enterprise Services, However I haven't found anything online the provides a
definitive answer.

------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:16:38 -0700
From: Charles Klement <cjk at klement.org>
To: Jimmy Changa <jimmy.changa007 at gmail.com>,
	cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 4900M BGP Support
Message-ID:
	<AANLkTinYyfZ9EWLApNf=0cDz_qDpkOGpaO=sJOFNPM=V at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I believe that there is only enough tcam to support about 250000 ipv4 routes.

On 9/27/10, Jimmy Changa <jimmy.changa007 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
>
>
> Does anyone know if the Cisco 4900M support full BGP tables? Are their
> limits to the number of routes they support? I'm running 12.2(53)SG2
> Enterprise Services, However I haven't found anything online the provides a
> definitive answer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list
cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp

End of cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 94, Issue 104
******************************************

!DSPAM:4ca10b79286358362916074!