Have you tried "service unsupported-transceiver"? -Josh
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:55 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send cisco-nsp mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cisco-nsp digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. NTP Sources placement in MPLS network (Yham) > 2. Re: [j-nsp] NTP Sources placement in MPLS network (Jared Mauch) > 3. Re: Etherchannel Issue (Jeyamurali Sivapathasundaram) > 4. Re: ASR 901 EoMPLS (Fredrik V?cks) > 5. Possible split horizon issue with bgp signalled vpls (Nick Ryce) > 6. Third party transceivers that fail only with new NX-OS 6.2.2a > on sup-2E (Jeffrey G. Fitzwater) > 7. Re: Third party transceivers that fail only with new NX-OS > 6.2.2a on sup-2E (Justin M. Streiner) > 8. Re: ASR 901 EoMPLS (Pshem Kowalczyk) > 9. Re: [j-nsp] NTP Sources placement in MPLS network (Yham) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:33:04 -0500 > From: Yham <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Subject: [c-nsp] NTP Sources placement in MPLS network > Message-ID: > <CAJEaoj-sT1RGTtH9JEhfAS32YRL+21JbBRBkWv8= > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hi Guys, > > > In a SP environment where there are hundreds of PEs and P devices that got > hundreds of customers VRFs, what is the best place to connect NTP sources. > The place i can think of is connecting with VPNv4 Route Reflectors because > they exist on top of hierarchy and so clock can travel downward from RR to > PEs and P and from PEs to CEs and further down if required. > > Any thoughts on this please. > > Regards > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:52:16 -0500 > From: Jared Mauch <[email protected]> > To: Yham <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected] List" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected] NSP" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] [j-nsp] NTP Sources placement in MPLS network > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > This all depends on what you need the clocking for. > > If you want just generic time for accurate logs? > > Depending on what you want to do, there's cheap NTP clocks like this: > > http://www.netburnerstore.com/product_p/pk70ex-ntp.htm > > For about $350 (including S/H in the US) you get a GPS clock. With the > right location/antenna you can get signal through some roofs. > > There's a variety of higher-end timing options depending on what you need. > > - Jared > > On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Yham <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Guys, > > > > > > In a SP environment where there are hundreds of PEs and P devices that > got > > hundreds of customers VRFs, what is the best place to connect NTP > sources. > > The place i can think of is connecting with VPNv4 Route Reflectors > because > > they exist on top of hierarchy and so clock can travel downward from RR > to > > PEs and P and from PEs to CEs and further down if required. > > > > Any thoughts on this please. > > > > Regards > > _______________________________________________ > > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:58:39 +0000 > From: Jeyamurali Sivapathasundaram <[email protected]> > To: M K <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Etherchannel Issue > Message-ID: <-2299382920471725940@unknownmsgid> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Have you tried to remove all portchannel config. > > Shutdown all ports. Then only enable the ports you got a problem with ? > > Or try with the ports that work and then add the other ports and check > the logs ?? > > Jey S. > Network Engineer > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 18 Nov 2013, at 12:27, M K <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I have Cisco CISCO7606-S (R7000) with 48 SFM-capable 48 port > 10/100/1000mb RJ45 moduleNow , I have 5 ports connected to my WiMAX ASN > gateway via two vlans one to the access side and the other one connected to > the core sideThe issue am facing now is some of the ports are into > errdisable state by itself > > Module diagnostics output 3 Pass > > Group Port-channel Protocol > > Ports------+-------------+-----------+-----------------------------------------------10 > Po10(SU) - Gi3/3(D) Gi3/11(D) Gi3/19(D) > Gi3/27(P) Gi3/35(P) 20 Po20(SU) - > Gi3/4(D) Gi3/12(D) Gi3/20(D) > Gi3/28(P) Gi3/36(P) > > CR2.KJ-Building#sh int Gi3/3 | inc lineGigabitEthernet3/3 is down, line > protocol is down (err-disabled) > > interface GigabitEthernet3/3 description ASN LBPA0 C6 P5 (Po10) > (CORE_VLAN) switchport switchport access vlan 10 switchport mode access no > logging event link-status load-interval 30 speed 1000 duplex full > flowcontrol receive on flowcontrol send on channel-group 10 mode on > > CR2.KJ-Building#sh run int vlan 10Building configuration... > > Current configuration : 242 bytes!interface Vlan10 description CORE VLAN > ip address 10.40.2.3 255.255.255.240 no ip redirects no ip unreachables > load-interval 30 standby 10 ip 10.40.2.1 standby 10 priority 120 standby 10 > preempt standby 10 name CORE_VLAN_HSRP > > The configuration for the physical port is identical for all ports , no > log messages give a clue that there is a problemNow , if i enabled those > interfaces again , I lose the device until I restart the module again > > No spanning-tree issues were noticed , I have checked everything ! > > What could cause this? > > Thanks > > _______________________________________________ > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:04:48 +0100 > From: Fredrik V?cks <[email protected]> > To: Pshem Kowalczyk <[email protected]> > Cc: "<[email protected]>" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR 901 EoMPLS > Message-ID: > < > camkppbbh69jccdmmquczp-1mexzxdyzgf2o76ocrf0ekjkx...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hi, > > Im trying to do this on Version 15.3(3)S but the xconnect is rejected if I > enable l2protocol forward. > > Which version are you succesfully doing this on? > > > (config-if-srv)# l2protocol forward > (config-if-srv)#xconnect x.x.x.x 1730 encapsulation mpls > Layer2 protocol tunnel/forward/peer configured. Command rejected > > /F > > > > > On 18 November 2013 19:43, Pshem Kowalczyk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > The only way we could get the L2 forwarding going on ASR901 was using > > a single service instance with encapsulation default (this only works > > in newest software): > > > > interface GigabitEthernet0/8 > > no ip address > > negotiation auto > > no keepalive > > service instance 1 ethernet > > encapsulation default > > l2protocol forward > > xconnect 10.123.129.3 34322 encapsulation mpls > > mtu 9000 > > > > > > kind regards > > Pshem > > > > > > On 19 November 2013 02:11, Fredrik V?cks <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > We are having a customer who says he can't forward BPDU packets over an > > > portbased EoMPLS using an ASR 901. > > > > > > Is this something known or am I missing something? Relevant > > configuration; > > > > > > interface TenGigabitEthernet0/1 > > > description c_customer433231 > > > no keepalive > > > xconnect x.x.x.x 1730 encapsulation mpls > > > > > > /F > > > _______________________________________________ > > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:05:46 +0000 > From: Nick Ryce <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: [c-nsp] Possible split horizon issue with bgp signalled vpls > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > Hi, > > I?m tearing my hair out with this one and can?t figure out how to resolve > it. > > I have 3 switches that have a BGP signalled VPLS with customer routers > hanging off the end of all 3 ( one switch has 2 cpe ) > > All have the RD 56595:4 and RT 56595:4 > > All pseudo wires are up between the switches with config snippets below:- > > Switch 1 > > VFI name: FLVPLS004, state: up, type: multipoint, signaling: BGP > VPN ID: 4, VE-ID: 3, VE-SIZE: 10 > RD: 56595:4, RT: 56595:4, 56595:4 > Bridge-Domain 903 attachment circuits: > Vlan903 > Neighbors connected via pseudowires: > Interface Peer Address VE-ID Local Label Remote Label S > pseudowire100033 46.226.0.9 2 402 39 Y > pseudowire100037 46.226.0.14 1 401 49 Y > > This switch has 1 cpe with any vlan tags stripped and can ping all devices > on the other switches > > > Switch 2 > > VFI name: FLVPLS004, state: up, type: multipoint, signaling: BGP > VPN ID: 4, VE-ID: 1, VE-SIZE: 10 > RD: 56595:4, RT: 56595:4, 56595:4 > Bridge-Domain 11 attachment circuits: > Vlan11 > Neighbors connected via pseudowires: > Interface Peer Address VE-ID Local Label Remote Label S > pseudowire100015 46.226.0.12 3 49 401 Y > pseudowire100018 46.226.0.9 2 48 37 Y > > This switch has 2 cpe?s with any vlan tags stripped. They can ping each > other and the device connected to switch 1 but cannot ping device on switch > 3 > > Switch 3 > > VFI name: FLVPLS004, state: up, type: multipoint, signaling: BGP > VPN ID: 4, VE-ID: 2, VE-SIZE: 10 > RD: 56595:4, RT: 56595:4, 56595:4 > Bridge-Domain 4 attachment circuits: > Vlan4 > Neighbors connected via pseudowires: > Interface Peer Address VE-ID Local Label Remote Label S > pseudowire100028 46.226.0.12 3 39 402 Y > pseudowire100027 46.226.0.14 1 37 28 Y > > This switch has 1 cpe device connected with any vlan tags stripped and can > only ping the device on switch 1 > > > Each switch can see all the correct mac addresses. > > It sounds like split horizon but I assumed this was only to do with the > local switch? > > All devices are running 15.3(3)S > > Any help much appreciated. > > Nick > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:24:23 +0000 > From: "Jeffrey G. Fitzwater" <[email protected]> > To: "<[email protected]>" <[email protected]> > Subject: [c-nsp] Third party transceivers that fail only with new > NX-OS 6.2.2a on sup-2E > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > > Since CISCO TECH will probably not touch this because its not CISCO, I see > if anybody has solution. > > > > We are running nx-os 6.1.3 on 7k with sup-2E on a new chassis that will go > into production soon. We wanted to run the 6.2.2a to fix some other issues > with logging and found out the channel ports failed to come up due to > transceiver Invalid. > > ??????- > > ( Eth1/1 #### core-ns ch xcvrInval trunk auto auto > 10Gbase-LR) > > ??????- > > Backing out to 6.1.3 and all comes back to life. > > > Has anybody else sent his issue with third party transceivers? > > I?ll probably open a TAC case just to see what they say anyway. > > > > Thanks for any help. > > > > > Jeff Fitzwater > OIT Network System > Princeton University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:00:00 -0500 (EST) > From: "Justin M. Streiner" <[email protected]> > To: "<[email protected]>" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Third party transceivers that fail only with new > NX-OS 6.2.2a on sup-2E > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2013, Jeffrey G. Fitzwater wrote: > > > Since CISCO TECH will probably not touch this because its not CISCO, I > > see if anybody has solution. > > > > Backing out to 6.1.3 and all comes back to life. > > > > Has anybody else sent his issue with third party transceivers? > > I don't know if Cisco's stance on running third-party optics changed > between NX-OS 6.1 and 6.2, but that's certainly possible. I'm running > NX-OS 6.2.2 in production on a few of our 7Ks, but we don't have any > non-Cisco optics to test with. > > jms > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 07:43:15 +1300 > From: Pshem Kowalczyk <[email protected]> > To: Fredrik V?cks <[email protected]> > Cc: "<[email protected]>" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR 901 EoMPLS > Message-ID: > <CAEaZiRXiwDF5tVA5sd6nJyh45RMkkjT3nA8z4EZTTjg= > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hi, > > The only way we could get the L2 forwarding going on ASR901 was using > a single service instance with encapsulation default (this only works > in newest software): > > interface GigabitEthernet0/8 > no ip address > negotiation auto > no keepalive > service instance 1 ethernet > encapsulation default > l2protocol forward > xconnect 10.123.129.3 34322 encapsulation mpls > mtu 9000 > > > kind regards > Pshem > > > On 19 November 2013 02:11, Fredrik V?cks <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > We are having a customer who says he can't forward BPDU packets over an > > portbased EoMPLS using an ASR 901. > > > > Is this something known or am I missing something? Relevant > configuration; > > > > interface TenGigabitEthernet0/1 > > description c_customer433231 > > no keepalive > > xconnect x.x.x.x 1730 encapsulation mpls > > > > /F > > _______________________________________________ > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:54:59 -0500 > From: Yham <[email protected]> > To: Jared Mauch <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected] List" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected] NSP" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] [j-nsp] NTP Sources placement in MPLS network > Message-ID: > < > cajeaoj_ctyaksxi4ktvvwryvndvxbcvpfiqn2azjoi8sbs-...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Thank Jared, > > NTP is only needed to synchronize the logs so on event of failure, logs > from related devices can be correlated. > > Thanks > > > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Jared Mauch <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > This all depends on what you need the clocking for. > > > > If you want just generic time for accurate logs? > > > > Depending on what you want to do, there's cheap NTP clocks like this: > > > > http://www.netburnerstore.com/product_p/pk70ex-ntp.htm > > > > For about $350 (including S/H in the US) you get a GPS clock. With the > > right location/antenna you can get signal through some roofs. > > > > There's a variety of higher-end timing options depending on what you > need. > > > > - Jared > > > > On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Yham <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Guys, > > > > > > > > > In a SP environment where there are hundreds of PEs and P devices that > > got > > > hundreds of customers VRFs, what is the best place to connect NTP > > sources. > > > The place i can think of is connecting with VPNv4 Route Reflectors > > because > > > they exist on top of hierarchy and so clock can travel downward from RR > > to > > > PEs and P and from PEs to CEs and further down if required. > > > > > > Any thoughts on this please. > > > > > > Regards > > > _______________________________________________ > > > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list > [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > ------------------------------ > > End of cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 132, Issue 56 > ****************************************** > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
