Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
- Cisco Community
- :
- About Sam Byers
Stats
Member since
12-20-2011
43
Posts
9
Helpful
4
Solutions
05-06-2017
02:06 PM
The feature navigator doesn't show MPLSoGRE for this platform in IOS-XE (it does show routers). MPLS is pretty new in the 3850, so I'm not sure if MPLSoGRE would be supported out of the gate. If the control plane works, but not the data plane, it's probably that the switch doesn't know how to add the GRE header on top instead of imposing a label.
Feature guide for GRE on 3850:
http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst3850/software/release/16-1/workflows/gre-feature-guide.pdf
Feature guide for MPLS on 3850:
http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst3850/software/release/16-3/workflows/MPLS-feature-guide-1631.pdf
In the above guides, there's no mention of MPLSoGRE.
... View more
05-06-2017
01:16 PM
Is the plan to use the built-in ports or a port off an SPA?
The parts GLC-SX-MMD and SFP-GE-T are the same kind of part for a different media (fiber and copper, respectively). The part you need depends on the media the WAN is using.
What is the media in the WAN?
... View more
Hello!
A 3850-48XS would work for your requirements. It has 48 SFP/SFP+ ports, so it'd have some ports left over for expansion.
It has good routing features and routes at line rate.
... View more
05-06-2017
03:56 AM
Hello!
You are correct, the meaning of superior BPDU is that the BID is lower than the current root. As you probably know, the BID is a combination of the bridge priority and the system MAC.
In context of STP, superior or better means a lower value (similar to route costs or metrics).
... View more
08-11-2016
08:28 PM
NP Hidayat!
For my understanding: you want to use the DCI link as a backup path to MPLS if one side can't reach it?
I'm assuming all devices in the OSPF Area X areas are participating in OSPF? What do you need to track? If a route -or all routes- stop being available via L3 Ext router on one side, OSPF will converge and find those routes via the DCI out the other DC.
At least I got one! :)
This is mostly personal preference, but I just don't like mutual redistribution at more than 1 point. It makes integrating w/ other networks harder later, using tags is fine but it doesn't keep it simple. Also, when redistributing from OSPF->BGP, if someone accidentally adds a ton of networks your MPLS provider will shutdown your peering (usually set for 1000 routes). That is a traumatic experience I've witnessed folks do to themselves before.
... View more
08-10-2016
08:27 AM
Nice diagram!
Quick answers:
That's how the routing protocols work. If OSPF knows of multiple ways to get to a network via your BGP->OSPF redistribution, when one goes down all routers will now router to the only other possible path.
Why do you need tracking if every device is participating in the routing domain? There's built-in info sharing and tracking w/ BGP and OSPF.
For incoming, you probably want to have the secondary site attach a community or prepend the AS to slightly devalue the networks. Check w/ your MPLS provider to see if they have a community to use for that or just prepend your AS a couple of times to make the as-path longer. If you every go active-active, you can just rely on the providers RR's to handle best path.
I wouldn't mutually redistribute on both sides between OSPF<->BGP. I would redistribute from BGP->OSPF and either use summaries or manual configuration of BGP out to the MPLS cloud. Mutual redistribution causes weirdness and you have to start using tags to eliminate loops (micro or otherwise).
... View more
03-13-2015
12:12 PM
I had this issue with a 2960-X. Your post helped me out! I am using SecureCRT, and I had to disable all flow control. Thanks.
... View more
03-03-2015
09:39 AM
I would upgrade to 7.6.130.0 (after a proper bug scrub w/ your environment and used features in mind, of course). A seasoned veteran once advised me to avoid upgrading to any .0 release from Cisco. I've mostly followed that rule and been happier for it.
... View more
Created by
Sam Byers
in Wireless Security and Network Management
in Wireless Security and Network Management
08-14-2014
07:28 AM
08-14-2014
07:28 AM
I don't remember there being a NAS-ID attribute for FlexConnect groups. There is one for AP Group and WLAN.
... View more
08-14-2014
06:50 AM
So, I just built this in the lab, and it seemed to work ok. I attached a sparse config, but it does let my host on the GuestWireless get the internet via NAT. R2#sh ip nat translations vrf GuestWireless Pro Inside global Inside local Outside local Outside global icmp 17.12.244.194:5 192.168.200.1:5 1.1.1.1:5 1.1.1.1:5 R2#sh ip route vrf GuestWireless Routing Table: GuestWireless Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2 E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2 i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2 ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user static route o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route Gateway of last resort is 17.12.244.195 to network 0.0.0.0 17.0.0.0/28 is subnetted, 1 subnets C 17.12.244.192 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0 C 192.168.200.0/24 is directly connected, Vlan200 S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 17.12.244.195
... View more
08-13-2014
05:09 PM
That's odd. Did you have translations in the NAT table for the guest vrf? The guest hosts, do they get the right ip? You'll have to change the dhcp config to work in that vrf.
... View more
08-13-2014
03:26 PM
In that case, you'll probably want to segregate the GuestWireless traffic into a vrf. Do GuestWireless or Data ever need to talk to each other? Do they ever use the same interface for internet access? Something like this, maybe: ip vrf GuestWireless ! interface FastEthernet0/0 description GuestWireless route to internet ip vrf forwarding GuestWireless ip address 17.12.244.194 255.255.255.240 ip nat outside ip virtual-reassembly ! interface Vlan200 description Guest Wireless ip vrf forwarding GuestWireless ip address 192.168.200.254 255.255.255.0 ip nat inside ip virtual-reassembly ! ip route vrf GuestWireless 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 17.12.244.195 ! You have to use an IP here, I just used .195 as an example. ! ip nat inside source list 10 interface FastEthernet0/0 vrf GuestWireless overload ! access-list 10 permit 192.168.200.0 0.0.0.255
... View more
05-06-2017
The feature navigator doesn't show MPLSoGRE for this platform in IOS-XE
(it does show routers). MPLS...
05-06-2017
Is the plan to use the built-in ports or a port off an SPA? The parts
GLC-SX-MMD and SFP-GE-T are th...
05-06-2017
Hello! You are correct, the meaning of superior BPDU is that the BID is
lower than the current root....
08-11-2016
NP Hidayat! For my understanding: you want to use the DCI link as a
backup path to MPLS if one side ...
08-10-2016
Nice diagram! Quick answers: That's how the routing protocols work. If
OSPF knows of multiple ways t...
03-13-2015
I had this issue with a 2960-X. Your post helped me out! I am using
SecureCRT, and I had to disable ...
03-03-2015
I would upgrade to 7.6.130.0 (after a proper bug scrub w/ your
environment and used features in mind...
Created by
Sam Byers
in Wireless Security and Network Management
08-14-2014
08-14-2014
I don't remember there being a NAS-ID attribute for FlexConnect groups.
There is one for AP Group an...
08-14-2014
So, I just built this in the lab, and it seemed to work ok. I attached a
sparse config, but it does ...
08-13-2014
That's odd. Did you have translations in the NAT table for the guest
vrf? The guest hosts, do they g...
Public Statistics
| Date Registered | 12-20-2011 05:19 AM |
| Date Last Visited | 08-18-2017 04:03 AM |
| Total Messages Posted | 43 |
| Total Helpful Votes Received | 9 |
