[c-nsp] ASR901/9010 config

[Nick Hilliard]

This would be simple with mpls:

asr901:
int gi0/5
 xconnect ip.of.asr9010 9999 encapsulation mpls

asr9010:
int gi0/0/0/0
 l2transport
l2vpn
 xconnect group cust-vpws
  p2p vpws-cust-a
   interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0/0
   neighbor ipv4 ip.of.asr901 pw-id 9999

If you're using a tagged port at either end, it can be slightly more
complicated due to MTU issues.  See chap 5 of this document for some
guidelines:

> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/metro/me3600x_3800x/software/design/guide/ASR9K_interop_white_paper.pdf

Nick


On 30/05/2014 12:13, Shane Heupel wrote:
> I originally had it configured that way but changed it so I could do some troubleshooting because they were unable to pass any traffic.  I plan to put it back once we get traffic going.  I guess my question is how does the interfaces between the ASR901 and 9010 need to be configured.  I had TAC on the phone for about two hours last night and they couldn't figure it out.  I see the MAC of the equipment from Site B in the 9010 but I never see the MAC of the equipment connected to the 901.  
> 
> My original config:
> ASR901:
> Int gi0/5
> Description to Cust Site A
> Service instance 2088
> Encapsulation untagged
> Bridge-domain 2088
> !
> Int gi0/4
> Description To ASR9k
> Service-instance 2088 eth
> Encapsulation untagged
> Bridge-domain 2088
> !
> ASR9010
> Int gi0/1/1/0.2088
> Encapsulation untagged
> !
> Int gi0/0/0/0.2088
> To Cust CPE at Site B
> Encapsulation untagged
> !
> L2vpn
> xconnect group IE_2088
>   p2p IE_2088
>    interface gi0/0/0/0.2088
>    interface gi0/1/1/0.2088
> !
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:nick at foobar.org] 
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 5:19 AM
> To: Shane Heupel; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR901/9010 config
> 
> On 30/05/2014 01:37, Shane Heupel wrote:
>> Hoping someone can help with a configuration I'm having trouble with.
>> Trying to pass untagged traffic from cust-site-A to cust-site-B.
>> Thought the configuration would be straight forward but traffic is not 
>> passing between host.  I'm sure I'm missing something simple but can't 
>> seem to figure it out.
> 
> why not use an mpls xconnect here?  Would be a much better fit for your requirements.  You don't need an extra license to do this on your asr9k.
> An mpls xconnect will give your customer a clear-channel path between site A and B, and there's no MAC address learning on your network which means they can do whatever they want and it won't trash your forwarding tables.
> 
> If you provide them with a VLAN service, then it's not fully transparent to them (which is annoying for them) and they can screw up your network by sending frames with too many different mac addresses (which is critical for you).
> 
> Nick
> 
> 
>