06-24-2011 01:44 PM - edited 03-01-2019 02:27 PM
Hi,
Im in the process of doing a design for our SCE deployment and was looking at how I would load balance traffic across 2 SCE2k’s on 2 ASR9K’s and have come across a pretty good explanation in the ASR9K configuration guide on interface bundling using MGSCP. However when I look at the sample configurations provided they look wrong. Can someone please have a look at these and let me know if they are right or wrong.
The topology as I understand it would look like this
|----{SCE}-----|
{access vrf}--- |------------------|-----{core vrf}
|----{SCE}-----|
The config from the guide looks as follows
Cisco Example with OSPF Routing see page 65
vrf core
address-family ipv4 unicast
import route-target 1:1
export route-target 1:1
!
vrf access
address-family ipv4 unicast
import route-target 1:1
export route-target 1:1
interface GigabitEthernet0/2/0/1
vrf access
ipv4 address 10.10.1.4 255.255.255.0
_
interface GigabitEthernet0/2/0/9
vrf core
ipv4 address 10.20.1.4 255.255.255.0
router ospf 100
vrf core
router-id 10.20.1.2
area 0
interface Bundle-Ether200
interface GigabitEthernet0/2/0/9
vrf access
router-id 10.10.1.2
area 0
interface Bundle-Ether100
interface GigabitEthernet0/2/0/1
With this configuration I have the following questions
1. Why are they using the same RD for both VRF’s this will cause the routes from each vrf to be visible to the other without the need to pass through the SCE?
Should I rather be using my config as below or wont this work and why
vrf core
address-family ipv4 unicast
import route-target 1:1
export route-target 1:1
!
vrf access
address-family ipv4 unicast
import route-target 1:2
export route-target 1:2
interface GigabitEthernet0/2/0/1
vrf access
ipv4 address 10.10.1.1 255.255.255.252
_
interface GigabitEthernet0/2/0/9
vrf core
ipv4 address 10.10.1.2 255.255.255.252
router ospf 100
vrf core
area 0
interface GigabitEthernet0/2/0/9
vrf access
area 0
interface GigabitEthernet0/2/0/1
If I should stick to the config from the cisco guide please explain to me the traffic flow as Im having a hard time seeing this.
There doesn’t seem to be much information available on how to setup MGSCP and the samples that I get all look different
Thanks for your help
Pieter
Solved! Go to Solution.
06-29-2011 05:55 AM
Sure here is the design doc. Not sure if you have it already.
https://supportforums.cisco.com/docs/DOC-17227
Shelley.
06-28-2011 12:18 PM
Hasn't anyone done this before? can anyone please post their configs to review?
thanks
06-28-2011 12:58 PM
Hi,
Cisco has tested this scenario only with the 6500 thus far.
The only tricky portion of this feature is the way etherchannels loadbalance on the wires. There are requirements that 1 card on the 6500 be a DFC based so that it can have its own (differnet) loadbalancing mechanism than the rest of the chassis. If the ASR9k can do this you can certainly have the MGSCP configured on the ASR9k.
Shelley.
06-28-2011 11:08 PM
Thanks Shelley,
Do you have a working example of this on the 6500 with two VRF's? I havent been able to find any detailed examples of the traffic flow in this setup.
Thanks
PJ
06-29-2011 05:55 AM
Sure here is the design doc. Not sure if you have it already.
https://supportforums.cisco.com/docs/DOC-17227
Shelley.
06-29-2011 12:54 PM
Thanks, I didnt have this guide. This realy cleared up some things form me
04-09-2015 07:57 AM
Dear All,
the provided document explain MGSCP with 6500/7600 using Vlan Mapping (L2).
has anyone figured out how to put this to work using VRFs with ASR 9K ??
the documents does not provide designs , only configuration of 2 VRF Access and Core !
waiting forward for your answer.
Taoufik
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide