My experience,

I'm running MLPPP on serial on different links type.
For a direct layer 2 link MLPPP seems to running properly should any of E1
having problem.
Both sites declare line protocol down.

Router-Serial/E1 Converter-Microwave w/ E1s-Serial/E1 Converter-Router

For segmented layer 2 link MLPPP (multihop) using LC/what ever.
MLPPP doesn't work pretty well.
If one of each MUX/Converter having problem at one site, on other site the
line protocol still Up.
And the MLPPP keeps forward all traffic in balance load to all active
serial.

Router-Serial/E1
Converter-Router

So, yes the transmitting / receiving became not perfectly work.
There should some packets to lost.

Salam,
a. Rahman Isnaini r. Sutan

Message
From: "Kanagaraj Krishna" <kanagaraj (AT) aims (DOT) com.my>
To: "Shaikh, Nasir" <Nasir.Shaikh (AT) atosorigin (DOT) com>;
<gautam_attravanam (AT) sifycorp (DOT) com>
Cc: <cisco-nsp (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] PPP multilink synchronization

: Hi Nasir,
: FYI, both are serial links. But why do the remote site sees
: link A as active, when actually its down (as seen from our side)? I
thought
: in PPP multilink bundle setups, its suppose to automatically divert all
: traffic to the active link in the case of outage on the other link. Are
: there any solutions for this issue? Thanks.
:
: Regards,
: Kana
:
: Message
: From: "Shaikh, Nasir" <Nasir.Shaikh (AT) atosorigin (DOT) com>
: To: "Kanagaraj Krishna" <kanagaraj (AT) aims (DOT) com.my>;
: <gautam_attravanam (AT) sifycorp (DOT) com>
: Cc: <cisco-nsp (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net>
: Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 11:07 PM
: Subject: RE: [c-nsp] PPP multilink synchronization
:
:
:
: That is because the remote side still sees both links A & B as active and
: keeps sending packets over both the members of the multilink bundle. This
: results in some packets going through while some do not.
:
: What kind of links are you using? Serial, F/R, ATM? Do you have FREEK (for
: F/R) or AM/ILMI (for ATM) configured on the links?
:
: regards
:
: Nasir
:
: Message
: From: cisco-nsp-bounces (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net
: [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net] Behalf Kanagaraj Krishna
: Sent: dinsdag 9 mei 2006 16:39
: To: gautam_attravanam (AT) sifycorp (DOT) com
: Cc: cisco-nsp (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net
: Subject: Re: [c-nsp] PPP multilink synchronization
:
:
: Regarding the keepalives, I'll give it a try. the other question, when
: link
: A goes down, link B stays up (physical & line protocol). But ping to the
: other
: side would be intermittent. Shutting the interface for link A on the
remote
: side results in smooth ping results. Any clues?
:
: Any idea which version of IS is affected by Bug id CSCsd01816?
:
: Thanks
:
: Hi
: >
: It is possible you may be running into Bug id CSCsd01816. Alternatively,
: force a keepalive on the link and see if it solves the issue. When this
: happens, does the link go down the other side. What does sh ppp
multilink
: give you on the remote side ?
: >
: Regards
: >
: Message
: From: cisco-nsp-bounces (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net
: [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net] Behalf Kanagaraj Krishna
: Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 2:17 PM
: To: cisco-nsp (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net
: Subject: Re: [c-nsp] PPP multilink synchronization
: >
: >
: Hi,
: I have an issue with my PPP multilink setup which consist of 2
links
: (A
: & B). my side a 7206VXR router is being used, while a 2600 series on
: the
: remote side. In a situation where link A goes down, the other link B
: should
: be functioning without issues. But in this case, whenever link A goes
: down,
: the B link becomes intermittent. Shutting the local interface for link A
: did
: not have any effect.We solved the issue by shutting the remote interface
: for
: Link A. Does anyone have any idea on what could be wrong? Could it be
: related to IS incompatibility or misconfiguration issues?
: >
: Thanks,
: Kanagaraj Krishna
: >
:
: cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net
:
: archive at
: >
: >
: DISCLAIMER
: Information contained and transmitted by this E-MAIL is proprietary to
: Sify Limited and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to
: which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
: confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If this is
a
: forwarded message, the content of this E-MAIL may not have been sent
with
: the authority of the Company. If you are not the intended recipient, an
: agent of the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering
: the
: information to the named recipient, you are notified that any use,
: distribution, transmission, printing, copying or dissemination of this
: information in any way or in any manner is strictly prohibited. If you
: have
: received this communication in error, please delete this mail & notify
us
: immediately at admin (AT) sifycorp (DOT) com
: >
: >
: Log on to www.Sifymax.com for Cricket video score card, Hot videos from
: Lakme Fashion Week and more only on Sify Max!
: >
: Get to see what's happening in your favourite City on Bangalore Live!
: www.bangalorelive.in
: >
:
:
: --
: Kanagaraj Krishna
: Network Engineer
: Network Engineering
: Applied Information Management Services Sdn. Bhd.
: (AIMS Sdn. Bhd.)
: Ground Floor, Menara Aik Hua,
: Changkat Raja Chulan,
: 50200 Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia.
:
: Tel : +603-20314988 Ext : 395
: Mobile : 012-3266151
: Fax : +603-20318948
: Email : kanagaraj (AT) aims (DOT) com.my
:
: cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net
:
: archive at
:
:
:
: cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net
:
: archive at
:

cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net

archive at

Hi,
I've been using police (cat 3550) and rate-limit (subinterface Cisco7200) to manage our customers bandwidth. As i know, the rule of thumb for the rate-limit settings are:

rate-limit [input | output] rate normal_burst maximum_burst conform-action transmit exceed-action drop

normar burst = (rate/8) * 1.5
max burst = normal_burst * 2

Do we use the same rule for "police rate normal_burst exceed-action drop" command as well? This is because the max value for normal_burst in policing is only 2000000bytes which would not cater to higher rate like 20Mb (burst rate = (20480000/8) * 1.5 = 3840000bytes). Please share your thoughts. Thanks

Regards,
Kana

cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net

archive at

Hi,
We have a setup with 3 routers running BGP connecting to our upstream
provider and iBGP with the other routers on our local network. Usually, when
the "sh ip bgp xxx.xxx.xxx", is used we can see:
- the best path
- other alternative paths with the same local preference

Is it possible to also view paths with less local preference and inactive
routes? At the moment we have to run the command on the router that is
directly connected to a certain upstream (eBGP) to view available paths from
them which we can't see from our iBGP routers. Thanks.

Regards,
Kana

cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp (AT) puck (DOT) nether.net

archive at