Hi All,   I have pair of Nexus 9k, deployed as VPC peer. Each Peer has one Nexus 2K FEX. VMWare ESXi Host machine is connected to both FEX.  Now the problem is , the vPC on FEX is not coming up, even though all config is match on both Nexus 9k and Nexus 2k FEX is matched. "Show vpc brief" output, the particular VPC configured in FEX is shown as "Type-1 STP incompatibility". But when i type show vpc  consistency-parameters vpc or global, there is nothing mis-match.  The physical interface of VPC is in suspended state on both FEX. The Portchannel are configured in "switch mode trunk" The only thing i haven't configured is vSwitch on ESXi. The cable are physically connected , but vSwitch yet to be configured. Is this the cause for VPC to be down  or am I missing something else ?   Nagis ... View more

Hi All, Knowing that each site client site will eventually connected to PE, where the PE has VPLS configuration and the metro network switch the packet based on Layer 2 info. This if the remote client site in another metro network which is behind another PE. Now my question is , what if the same client has 2 location on the same Metro Network ?  is this both location need to communicate via PE , or will be directly communicate over Metro Network only ? I need some design guide . Thanks.    ... View more

Hi all, Im running MPLS L3VPN. PE1 and PE2 have iBGP peering to exchange VPNV4 routes. I have enabled the neighbour in address-family vpnv4. But I don't what PE1 and PE2 exchange global ipv4 routing which were originated from network command. If i disabled the neighbour in address-family ipv4, the neighbour relationship  goes down. How to make both PE only exchange VPNV4 routes  ?  Nagis ... View more

Hi All, I have two IP Transit Provider connected to my ASR router.  A: Standard IP Transit 1Gbps( receive full internet routing) B: Premium IP Transit 100Mbps ( Only receive ASyyyy network) Premium  IP Transit provide dedicated bandwidth to ASyyyy(Has SLA), while standard IP Transit provide shared bandwidth to any Internet destination. Now we have customer with requirement as below. We will assign our Public IP to this customer 1) 300Mbps Total Internet Bandwidth 2) Out of this 300Mbps, 20Mbps Bandwidth should be dedicted bandwidth to x.x.x.x network which is reside behind ASyyyy ( This is VC and Voice Traffic). Thus, the traffic should routed via Premium IP Transit.  ASyyyy is Service Provider. x.x.x.x network is allocated to customer by ASyyyy. Note that, only traffic destined to x.x.x.x should routed via Premium IP Transit. Any traffic to other network behind ASyyyy should goes via Standard IP Transit( and return route as well) due to bandwidth contrain of our Premium IP Transit.   How can we achieve this requirement ? any recommendation for BGP manipulation ?   Nagis   ... View more

HI All,   Can I use 40Km SFP for Fiber distance below 10Km ? I knew 10Km SFP is recommended, but putting aside costing, do I have any drawback using 40Km SFP in this environment ? ... View more

Hi All,   I would like to get suggestion about deploying L3 switch as P/PE Router. I'm taking consideration of other vendor switch as well. The overall aim is to cut down cost.For example, 10G Line card in L3 much cheaper(5 or 6 times cheaper) compared to 10G line card in router.  I have seen L3 product where it support mostly all function as router, and in terms of performance, it does match as well. We plan deploy router only at the edge of network for External Peering ( IX, Transit or Private Peering), while all other service run on P/PE device. Functionalities of P/PE that we looking at: 1)MPLS & MPLS VPN 2)Multicast 3)QOS 4)IGP/BGP 5)Security 6) VLAN / QinQ 7) MAC Limit 8) Route Limit   So is there any drawback of deploying L3 switch as P/PE router ? The L3 switch that I'm talking is Carrier Grade Switch, not the enterprise switch.(Eg, Cisco 6500 Catalyst Switch, Huawei 12700 Agile Switch) ... View more

Hi All,   I have case here.      1) 2 Transit Provider ( I called it Transit A and B) both with similar bandwidth     2) 1  Local Peering Exchange ( I called it IX) 3 of the above connection terminated at single router. Now that i have multiple IP Prefix a.a.a.a/24 and a.a.a.b/24 . To make load balance between Transit A & B, i have announced in BGP as below a.a.a.a/24 & a.a.a.a/23 via Transit A a.a.a.b/24 & a.a.a.a/23 via Transit B Note that above advertisement only influence how traffic returns(Inbound Load Balancing) to my network. But IX connection wins for those route tat receive from Local Peering( Shortest AS Path, due to direct peering with the other Provider). For Outbound Loadbalancing, I have chooses to Implement PBR on LAN interface with Object Tracking, to provide fail-over. My PBR as below a.a.a.b/24 via Transit B This look accomplishes my task. Outbound & Inbound Load Balancing Done. Transit A & B evenly utilized. . But actually, 1 thing has been missed out in this config. The PBR forces all traffic sourced from a.a.a.b/24 via Transit B including traffic destined to IX. This ultimately defeat our objective to have IX connectivity, where local traffic should not sent to Transit Link( At least traffic to those network that we have already peered via IX). I know that in PBR, we can deny prefix from IX connection, so that traffic destined to IX will not forwarded to Transit Link. But this give configuration headache where we need to keep update the prefix received from IX peering partners( At least 50k prefix ).    Is there any way to achieve our objective ? Load Balance Transit Link evenly , based on source IP Make sure no asymmetric routing Make use of IX link for local traffic( better speed, latency)   ... View more