- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: RFC2547 VPN discussion group? (With an inter-AS VPN question )
by Irwin Lazar 23 May '01

23 May '01

The MPLS-OPS mailing list on www.mplsrc.com has had frequent discussions on MPLS VPNs. Irwin -----Original Message----- From: Yu Ning [mailto:yuning@ns.chinanet.cn.net] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 10:18 PM To: Nanog-Post Subject: RFC2547 VPN discussion group? (With an inter-AS VPN question ) Hi All, Does anyone know RFC2547 VPN discussion group ? I can only find generic MPLS discussion from IETF. Better cisco oriented, because we use Cisco RFC2547 solution. Here is one of the problem we encountered now. Can anyone help ? We have 3 PEs connected with 3 CEs. PE1, PE2 are in the same AS4134, while PE3 in AS41340. It's not so luck that PE1 and PE3 is not back-to-back connected, but can be reached via a tag-switching enabled intermediate network. PE1-PE2 has MP-iBGP peer, while PE1-PE3 has MP-eBGP peer. Then we verify the traffic, and see that CE3, CE1 can ping each other, while CE3 can't ping CE2 ? But all three CEs can see prefix from other CEs. AS4134 AS41340 |----| |---| |---| |CE1 |-------|PE1|--(Tag switching )--|PE3| |----| |---| enabled inter- |---| | mediate network | | | | |---| | |CE3| |----| |---| |---| |CE2 |-------|PE2| |----| |---| BTW, We run PE on IOS Version 12.1(5)T6 regards, Yu Ning ____________________________________________ (Mr.) Yu Ning, Chief Engineer ChinaNET(AS4134) Sr. Sup.& New Sev. R&D Internet Product Dep. DCB, China Telecom Beijing, P.R.China +86-10-62072357/62072354 ____________________________________________

1 0

(no subject)
by srihari varada 22 May '01

22 May '01

Hello: I am in search of pointers for the following: -- Note(s) on the ML-PPP Deployment experiences I would appreciate, if any of you could provide information on the above. Regards, Srihari Varada Principal Engineer TranSwitch Corporation 3 Enterprise Dr. Shelton, CT 06484

1 0

your talk on v6 (fwd)
by Bill Manning 22 May '01

22 May '01

% most of your talk was ok, but i was frankly offended by the % gratuitous hype at the end -- advertising on behalf of any vendor, % independent of product, is inappropriate at a conference like NANOG. % worse, your freebie plug was literally all hype and no substance, and i % believe that it is not unreasonable for you to apologize to everyone for this % appalling misbehaviour at the end of an otherwise informative and even % interesting operationally-focused presentation. I apologize for making reference to a specific vendor announcement at the end of the presentation. It was uncalled for. --bill

1 0

Reference to the internet traffic growth
by Sudheer Dharanikota 22 May '01

22 May '01

Could somebody point me to a well respected referece on the Internet traffic growth trends. Thank you for the help. Regards, sudheer

1 0

RE: Request for a clue!
by Thomas Gainer 22 May '01

22 May '01

Aye, FCAPS is what I was looking for. Thanks Thomas Gainer -----Original Message----- From: Vinay Bannai [mailto:bannai@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 2:31 PM To: Thomas Gainer Cc: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' Subject: Re: Request for a clue! Thomas Gainer wrote: > I have heard a whisper about a network equipment evaluation standard called > FCATS. I have never heard of it (only NEBS) and I can not find any > information on it. All my searches turn up information on the Florida > standardized tests but nothing regarding technology evaluation and > reporting. Does anyone have a hint I can follow to find information, like > maybe what the acronym stands for? > > Thanks, > > Thomas Maybe you are referring to FCAPS. It stands for Fault Configuration Accounting Provisioning and Security. This is used to represent the various functionalities that a network equipment is typically required to support. I personally have not heard of FCATS in reference to network equipments. Vinay

1 0

What is the typical router environment
by Sean Donelan 22 May '01

22 May '01

One question which keeps coming up with network equipment vendors is what type of environment should they expect their equipement to operate in the typical ISP colocation or POP. This may or may not be the same as a "telco" environment. However, there isn't any good data, so folks fall back onto things like NEBS or IBM. I'd like to collect some real, typical data about the types of environments ISPs operate their equipment in. I have eight data loggers at NANOG, which I can loan people until the next NANOG. I'm asking some ISPs to put the loggers in their equipment rooms near the equipment (although not directly in the exhaust air) to measure the environment. The loggers are smaller than a box of coughdrops, however they are not for outdoor use. Please don't expose them to rain or water. I will be in Scottsdale until Wednesday, and in exchange for a business card (so I can keep track of who I loaned them too) and a promise to send the sensor back to me by the next NANOG, I will give you a pre-programmed temperature and humidity logger. If you prefer to collect the data yourself, and send me me data, rather than using my box in your POP: Collect current temperature (F) and relative humidity (%RH) once every 60-72 minutes with a timestamp (date and time) for 3 months. I can deal with either a plain text files containing comma-seperated values; or Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (97 or 2000). I need all the data points, not just averages from MRTG or the like. If you miss a few measurements, that's ok, as long as the timestamps shows valid data. If you use your own sensors, please verify the calibration of the sensors ahead of time. I don't need it traced to NIST, but use another thermometer and compare the readings. I've found the quality control on sensors used in router equipment isn't always the best, and can be systematically off by several degrees.

1 0

Re: A question on CE to PE route exchanges ...
by Dave Israel 22 May '01

22 May '01

On 5/21/2001 at 14:18:15 -0700, Robert Raszuk said: > > > not be interested. The issue here is that Cisco will tend to > > add IGP routes to the default table, not the VPN table. Bad > > things ensue. > > What ... ? For protocols that have been vrf aware routes go into vrfs > and not global RIB. That's the problem: not all the IGP's (specifically, not ours) are aware, and handling for a non-aware IGP on a VRF interface is more dangerous than one might expect. -Dave

1 0

Re: RFC2547 VPN discussion group? (With an inter-AS VPN question )
by Richard A. Steenbergen 22 May '01

22 May '01

On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:18:22AM +0800, Yu Ning wrote: > > Yu Ning > ____________________________________________ > > (Mr.) Yu Ning, Chief Engineer > ChinaNET(AS4134) Sr. Sup.& New Sev. R&D > Internet Product Dep. DCB, China Telecom > Beijing, P.R.China +86-10-62072357/62072354 > ____________________________________________ Interesting. Either a troll, or 4134 is not quite as rogue as the long rant (which I have no desire to restart) would lead you to believe. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

1 0

Nanog LiveCast
by Rich Sena 22 May '01

22 May '01

Is there is a schedule of when the livecasts will be available... The link on the page ATM is for mom-morn... -- Rich Sena - ras(a)thick.net ThickNET Consulting "On the way to understanding; you understand, and forget."

2 1

RFC2547 VPN discussion group? (With an inter-AS VPN question )
by Yu Ning 22 May '01

22 May '01

Hi All, Does anyone know RFC2547 VPN discussion group ? I can only find generic MPLS discussion from IETF. Better cisco oriented, because we use Cisco RFC2547 solution. Here is one of the problem we encountered now. Can anyone help ? We have 3 PEs connected with 3 CEs. PE1, PE2 are in the same AS4134, while PE3 in AS41340. It's not so luck that PE1 and PE3 is not back-to-back connected, but can be reached via a tag-switching enabled intermediate network. PE1-PE2 has MP-iBGP peer, while PE1-PE3 has MP-eBGP peer. Then we verify the traffic, and see that CE3, CE1 can ping each other, while CE3 can't ping CE2 ? But all three CEs can see prefix from other CEs. AS4134 AS41340 |----| |---| |---| |CE1 |-------|PE1|--(Tag switching )--|PE3| |----| |---| enabled inter- |---| | mediate network | | | | |---| | |CE3| |----| |---| |---| |CE2 |-------|PE2| |----| |---| BTW, We run PE on IOS Version 12.1(5)T6 regards, Yu Ning ____________________________________________ (Mr.) Yu Ning, Chief Engineer ChinaNET(AS4134) Sr. Sup.& New Sev. R&D Internet Product Dep. DCB, China Telecom Beijing, P.R.China +86-10-62072357/62072354 ____________________________________________

4 4