Mailing List Archive

[nsp] C7200, ATM route-bridge encaps, 12.2(12)?
Hi,

just to make sure there are no unexpected surprises... - I plan to upgrade
one of our 7200s that does ATM VC routing to 12.2(12) (coming from 12.1(9))
to be able to do ATM route-bridge encapsulation (RBE) now.

The box has an PA-A3-OC3, PA-2T3, PA-8E1, NPE-300.

Currently it's doing "aal5mux ip" only, but for some new type of CPE
equipment, I need to do RFC1483 LLC/SNAP bridging. Doing this via
"route-bridge ip" sounds *much* nicer than using BVIs and bridge-groups...

Anything that I should be aware of? Any reasons to stay away from
12.2(12), or 12.2 in general in that environment?

(Eventually that box will have to go to 12.2T or 12.2S to get IPv6 RBE,
but I'll tackle *that* when the first customer asks for IPv6 on their
DSL line).

thanks,

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert.doering@physik.tu-muenchen.de
Re: [nsp] C7200, ATM route-bridge encaps, 12.2(12)? [ In reply to ]
I dunno about 12.2(12), but I can highly recommend 12.2(10b). After having
crashing troubles with 12.2(10), we upgraded to (10b), and have had absolutely
no problems. We have no plan to upgrade to (12), using the "if it ain't
broke, don't fix it" rationale.

And yes, you're right, RBE is infinitely superior to BVIs and bridge-groups.

--
Bruce Robertson, President/CEO +1-775-348-7299
Great Basin Internet Services, Inc. fax: +1-775-348-9412
http://www.greatbasin.net
Re: [nsp] C7200, ATM route-bridge encaps, 12.2(12)? [ In reply to ]
> just to make sure there are no unexpected surprises... - I plan to upgrade
> one of our 7200s that does ATM VC routing to 12.2(12) (coming from 12.1(9))
> to be able to do ATM route-bridge encapsulation (RBE) now.
>
> The box has an PA-A3-OC3, PA-2T3, PA-8E1, NPE-300.

We're using 12.2(10) in a similar configuration, only our 7200 has a NPE-400
and no PA-2T3. It works like a charm. Haven't tried 12.2(12) yet.
Re: [nsp] C7200, ATM route-bridge encaps, 12.2(12)? [ In reply to ]
Version 12.2(11)T here. If you are going to have a lot of sub interfaces then
you will need

service compress-config

My config file is 185K uncompressed!



Blaz Zupan wrote:

> > just to make sure there are no unexpected surprises... - I plan to upgrade
> > one of our 7200s that does ATM VC routing to 12.2(12) (coming from 12.1(9))
> > to be able to do ATM route-bridge encapsulation (RBE) now.
> >
> > The box has an PA-A3-OC3, PA-2T3, PA-8E1, NPE-300.
>
> We're using 12.2(10) in a similar configuration, only our 7200 has a NPE-400
> and no PA-2T3. It works like a charm. Haven't tried 12.2(12) yet.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list real_name)s@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [nsp] C7200, ATM route-bridge encaps, 12.2(12)? [ In reply to ]
Hi,

On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 12:51:30PM -0700, Roy wrote:
> Version 12.2(11)T here. If you are going to have a lot of sub interfaces then
> you will need
>
> service compress-config
>
> My config file is 185K uncompressed!

Yes, thanks for reminding me. I'm not going for 12.2(*)T yet, though -
while I would like to see IPv6 route-bridge, it's not in there yet (and I
have developed a certain dislike of "T" images on production machines).

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert.doering@physik.tu-muenchen.de
Re: [nsp] C7200, 12.1, route-bridge ipv4, bridge ipv6? [ In reply to ]
Hi,

On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 10:00:17PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> Yes, thanks for reminding me. I'm not going for 12.2(*)T yet, though -
> while I would like to see IPv6 route-bridge, it's not in there yet (and I
> have developed a certain dislike of "T" images on production machines).

... which brought up an interesting question today.

Will IOS (12.1 code base) handle bridging IPv6 while routing IPv4?


The scenario I have been thinking of is something like this:

CPE with v4+v6 -> Ethernet/DSL-Modem, doing bridged-PDU ATM
-> 7206 with 12.1(16)

For IPv4, the 7206 is configured to do IRB...:

bridge irb
...
interface BVI1
description Bridge-Virtual for ATM2/0.117
mtu 1500
ip address 195.30.70.41 255.255.255.252
...
interface ATM2/0.117 point-to-point
description ADSL line with ethernet bridge to customer network
pvc gd1-797 15/117
ubr 1920
oam-pvc manage
encapsulation aal5snap
!
bridge-group 1
bridge-group 1 spanning-disabled
...
bridge 1 protocol ieee
bridge 1 route ip


Now I want to enable IPv6 on that customer line as well. The 7206 cannot
do it, but might it work to add an Ethernet port to "bridge-group 1",
and connect that to a 12.2T box with IPv6 on it?


So the packets would travel like this:

IPv4 -> Eth/ATM bridge -> 7206 -> int BVI 1 -> routed
IPv6 -> Eth/ATM bridge -> 7206 -> bridged to "ethernet4/0" -> IPv6 router

I intend to do this anyway :-) - I just wonder how "bridge irb" will
affect this - the "bridge 1 route ip" thing might do the wrong thing
here...

gert

--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert.doering@physik.tu-muenchen.de