Hello startx001,   Did you find a working solution when using xconnect as pppoe transport? Did you transport multiple VLANs over xconnect from one side (access/modems) to other side (BNGs)? I am planning a similar setup so I wonder how it works at yours ASR9ks.   BR, Antonio ... View more

Hello Nitin, Excellent article about active-active VSM mode. It reminds me on my setup of VSM solution. 1. Per your config, is it enough to SLA tracking only one ServiceApp1 on VSM module? There is no need to track ServiceApp1, ServiceApp3, ServiceApp5... because they are all on the same VSM module? So there is no need to send SLA traffic inbound to inside physical interface Bundle-Ether400.101 to get NATed? It can be just sourced from ServiceApp interface, no need for a traffic to right enter a ServiceApp through an inside physical interface? 2. In your setup you have only one uplink interface TenGigE0/3/0/4 (to the Internet). If we have a multihoming, then this SLA tracking of only one uplink is maybe not accurate because if this particular uplink will go down then there is a ABF switchover and that is actually not necessary because other uplinks will work. Is there a valid solution if a SLA tracking is toward a Loopback interface in global routing table? 3. I found a command o2i-vrf-override, is this a valid solution instead of a route leaking? In your config ServiceApp1 is in vrf SVSM-1 and inside physical port Bundle-Ether400.101 is in global routing table. Would that command help here so you don't have a following static route in your config? router static  vrf SVSM-1   address-family ipv4 unicast    10.1.1.0/24 vrf default 10.22.231.1       I appreciate your answers. Best regards, Antonio ... View more

Hello Carlos,   Did you maybe get a successful test about your confusion if one vrf = ½ total throughput (half of 60G)?   BR, Antonio   ... View more

Hello Carlos,   One thing which is maybe weird, if you put SA1 in default vrf, how did you configure a NAT in this portion, what is your inside-vrf parameter (here in example is inside-vrf ivrf1): service cgn cgn1 service-location preferred-active 0/1/CPU0 service-type nat44 nat1   inside-vrf ivrf1     map outside-vrf ovrf1 address-pool 100.1.1.0/24   ... View more

Hi Carlos A. Silva,   Yes, you are right, per guide if you have only one pair in input/output ServiceApp interfaces it should be some lower performance. You said that it achieves about 30G throughput, what about a number of sessions? Does it reach a maximum sessions per license, Nx 5 millions of sessions? What is MTU of packets flowing through?   Just curious, did you put SA1 and SA2 interfaces in the same VRF or different ones?   BR, Antonio ... View more

Hello, In section about a ACL-based Forwarding (ABF),  in table is configuration ipv4 access-list nat44_abf  ! Divert to ServiceApp 1  10 permit ipv4 10.0.100.0/24 any nexthop1 vrf ivrf1 ipv4 5.1.1.2  ! Divert to ServiceApp 3  20 permit ipv4 10.0.200.0/24 any nexthop1 vrf ivrf2 ipv4 6.1.1.2  100 permit ipv4 any any    and later for ServiceApp3 there is a vrf named ivrf3.  interface ServiceApp3  vrf ivrf3    I am interested if that interface ServiceApp3 should be in ivrf2 like in command in ACL for nexthop1?  I presume that IP address 6.1.1.2 (from ACL) is some other end of P2P link of a ServiceApp3 interface?    And one other question about VSMs, if I put a two VSM in one ASR9k chassis, with a full utillization of VSM,  which ServiceApp ports should be there?  ServiceApp1-2, ServiceApp3-4 on VSM1 and ServiceApp5-6, ServiceApp7-8 on VSM2?  What about an inside VRFs in that redundant scenario?    ivrf1 - ServiceApp1, ServiceApp3  ivrf2 - ServiceApp5, ServiceApp7    OR  ivrf1 - ServiceApp1  ivrf2 - ServiceApp3  ivrf3 - ServiceApp5  ivrf4 - ServiceApp7    BR,  Antonio ... View more