[c-nsp] Cisco ASR920-24SZ-IM BVI Feature Limitations

[Darin Herteen]

It's not so much about features I'm looking to implement so much as it is possible features I may lose.

Today, some customer Internet access is L2 transported back to a 9010 and service is terminated on L3 do1q sub-int.

If I wanted to entertain the idea of deploying a 920 closer to a customer for service termination, I'm going to do this on a BVI. 

So I'm looking to know whether or not I can expect to lose ACL, netflow, QoS on a 920 BVI the same as I would as a BVI on the Trident based LC's...

Regards,

Darin

________________________________________
From: cisco-nsp <cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net> on behalf of James Jun <james at towardex.com>
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:01 PM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ASR920-24SZ-IM BVI Feature Limitations

Hello,

> Even though I know they are not the same, I'm currently basing what features and I can, and cannot offer on a BVI based on a Trident Chipset using a A9K-16T/8-B/A9K-40GE-B as it is the lowest scale LC I deal with where I would otherwise terminate a customer service on a BVI. (http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr9000/software/asr9k_r5-1/interfaces/configuration/guide/hc51xasr9kbook/hc51irb.html)


Can you describe which specific features you're looking for, exactly?

On ASR920, integrated routing & bridging works just fine, that is layer-3 routed interface off bridge-domain sitting between EFPs and/or VPLS segment.

You just use 'bridge-domain XXX' under service instance, then configure the layer-3 interface using 'interface BDI XXX' (instead of BVI on A9K/XR).

Most stuff listed on your ASR9K link should work fine, albeit couple caveats I can think of top of my head:

- Last I checked (03.14.00.S), control-plane policing didn't seem to work very well.
  Not much of an issue for us, as our 920's mostly do layer-2 backhauls MX/A9K boxes.

- Port-channels/bundle as hand-off interfaces isn't a good idea.  Best to use individual ports.
  QoS features understandably become limited on the Po; hash algorithm doesn't seem to support L4 ports; only src/dst IP pair


Best,
James
_______________________________________________
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/